|
View Agenda for this meeting
REGULAR MEETING - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Proceedings had and Testimony taken in the matters of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Tuesday, March 8, 2011. BOARD MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: REPORTED BY: 1 Novi, Michigan 2 Tuesday, March 8, 2011. 3 - - - 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I'd like 5 to call the March 8, 2011, Zoning Board 6 of Appeals to order. 7 If we could start with the 8 Pledge of Allegiance. And, 9 Member Sanghvi, welcome back. Will you 10 please lead us. 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 12 I would be delighted. 13 (The Pledge of Allegiance was 14 recited.) 15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you. 16 Ms. Martin, if you would please call 17 the roll. 18 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 19 MEMBER IBE: Present. 20 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 21 MEMBER KRIEGER: Present. 22 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi? 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Here. 24 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?
1 MEMBER SKELCY: Here. 2 MS. MARTIN: Chairman 3 Ghannam? 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Here. 5 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 6 MEMBER GEDEON: Here. 7 MS. MARTIN: Member Cassis 8 will be absent tonight. 9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. 10 Thank you. I will go over briefly a 11 few of the format and rules that we 12 have, and all the rules should be 13 toward the entrance. 14 Make sure all pagers and cell 15 phones are off during this meeting. 16 When applicants are called, they will 17 be asked to come forth, state their 18 name and be sworn in by our secretary, 19 if they are not attorneys. 20 The applicants or their 21 representative will have five minutes 22 to address to the board. Extensions 23 may be granted at the discretion of the 24 chair.
1 Members of the public will be 2 asked if they have any particular 3 comments on any case being called at 4 that time, and they will be recognized 5 and limited to three minutes. 6 The first item on the list of 7 the agenda is the approval of the 8 agenda, and this would be for the 9 current agenda. Are there any 10 modifications or corrections to the 11 current agenda? 12 MS. MARTIN: Yes. The first 13 case, 10-061, 41107 Jo Drive, has 14 requested in writing to be tabled to 15 the April 12, 2011, ZBA meeting. 16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Do we need 17 a formal motion on that to adjourn 18 that? 19 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes. 20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Can I hear 21 a motion to adjourn that? What was the 22 date of the next meeting? 23 MS. MARTIN: April 12th. 24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: April
1 12th. Can I hear a motion to adjourn 2 the Jo Drive item to May -- I'm sorry, 3 April 12th? 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: So move. 5 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any 7 further discussion? If not, 8 Ms. Martin, can you please call the 9 roll. 10 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi? 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 12 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 13 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 14 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 15 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 16 MS. MARTIN: Chairman 17 Ghannam? 18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes. 19 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 20 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 21 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 22 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 23 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes, 24 five to zero.
1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. 2 MS. MARTIN: Six to zero, 3 sorry. 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other 5 corrections or modifications to the 6 agenda? 7 MS. MARTIN: No. 8 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: And I will 9 hear -- then can I hear a motion to 10 approve the agenda as modified? 11 MEMBER SANGHVI: So move. 12 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: All in 14 favor, say aye. 15 THE BOARD: Aye. 16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any 17 opposed? Seeing none, we have an 18 agenda for tonight. 19 Next is the approval of the 20 minutes for February 8, 2011. Are 21 there any corrections or modifications 22 to that? Mr. Boulard. 23 MR. BOULARD: On page 15, 24 line 20, the last words should be,
1 "They were not interested." That's it. 2 Thank you. 3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. 4 Anything else? Seeing none, anybody 5 want to make a motion to approve the 6 February 8, 2011, minutes of the 7 meeting as amended? 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: So move. 9 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: All in 11 favor, say aye. 12 THE BOARD: Aye. 13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any 14 opposed? Seeing none, the February 8, 15 2011, minutes are approved. 16 Next would be the public 17 remarks section. Is there anybody here 18 who would like to make a public remark 19 on items not currently before the 20 zoning board tonight? Seeing none, I 21 will close the public remarks section 22 and move to item number two, since 23 number one has been adjourned. 24 That is Case No. 10-062,
1 Weiss. The petitioner is requesting 2 variances to allow the land uses 3 allowed currently under Section 1401 of 4 the City of Novi zoning ordinance for 5 the B-2 zoning, for portions of 6 existing parcels 22-26-101-019 and 7 22-26-101-021 zoned I-1 and OS-1 8 respectively. 9 Could you please state your 10 name, please. 11 MR. QUINN: Yes. Good 12 evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'm 13 Matthew Quinn. I'm an attorney. I'm 14 appearing on behalf of Novi Ten 15 Associates. With me is Carmine 16 Avantini, a professional planner, and 17 he's ready to be sworn. 18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Could you 19 please raise your hand, sir. State 20 your address and be sworn. 21 MEMBER IBE: Sir, in Case 22 10-062, Weiss project, do you swear or 23 affirm to tell the truth? 24 MR. AVANTINI: I do.
1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Would you 2 state your name and address, please. 3 MR. AVANTINI: Carmine 4 Avantini, 306 South Washington Avenue, 5 Royal Oak, Michigan. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. 7 Whoever wishes to proceed, go ahead. 8 MR. QUINN: Yes. Good 9 evening, ladies and gentlemen. I was 10 here two months ago in front of you 11 when this matter was first scheduled, 12 and at that time you had a short panel, 13 and we agreed that the matter would be 14 adjourned to this evening. And also at 15 that time you asked that your city 16 attorney to provide you some written 17 information concerning this appeal. 18 And I would assume that you received 19 that information by this point in time. 20 This is a little unusual 21 matter that is in front of you this 22 evening, because this is a request for 23 a use variance. And perhaps you don't 24 see requests for use variances that
1 often. Typically, what you see here, 2 are dimensional variances for side yard 3 setbacks, sizes of buildings and things 4 like that. So, it's going take a 5 little bit of time to go through this. 6 Now, I realize that my client 7 signed and had notarized the 8 application that is in front of you 9 this evening, with a lot of material 10 there. And I would note that Mr. Weiss 11 did put that in an affidavit form as 12 far as the truthfulness of all the 13 contents of that application. 14 Now, we are here tonight, as 15 I said, for a use variance. What we 16 are asking for is the zoning of a piece 17 of property to become B-2. You are not 18 really changing the zoning, just the 19 use. The property is zoned, as you 20 will see in a moment, I-1 and OS-1. We 21 have been through the process, the 22 process for a PRO with the B-2 uses on 23 this process, and we were denied at the 24 city council. And that brings us to an
1 appeal to you as the quasi-judicial 2 body of the city. 3 Now, the property that we are 4 looking at is owned by Novi Associates. 5 And I think we can make this out here. 6 This is Ten Mile Road across the front. 7 This is Novi Road going this way. The 8 railroad tracks that we all have to 9 cross are on the east side of the 10 property. Behind us here is the sports 11 club. And this is Arena Drive coming 12 in from Novi Road. 13 Now, my client happens to own 14 all this property, but all of this is 15 not subject to tonight's application. 16 The property was zoned I-1 on the east 17 side and OS-1 on the west side. 18 Now, the area that we are 19 dealing with today - I guess we should 20 go this way - is the part one, which is 21 the industrial area, and part two, 22 which is the OS-1 area. We are only 23 asking for the B-2 uses on this area as 24 described in our application. Roughly,
1 it's 23 acres altogether. 2 And what we are asking for is 3 to use this property for the 4 construction of a grocery store. Right 5 now we have Krogers lined up for 6 allowing us to have a 40,000 square 7 foot neighborhood center here. This 8 Kroger store is approximately 63, 9 64,000 square feet. And then B-2 uses 10 on these five out-lots through here. 11 All the B-2 uses that would be allowed 12 by the ordinance. 13 Now, I do want to have a 14 caveat to that. We are not asking for 15 any automobile-related uses that are 16 referenced in the B-2 ordinance, only 17 the general retail items is what really 18 we are asking for to be used here. 19 Now, the question becomes, 20 you know, what right do we have to come 21 to you to ask that this be used for 22 B-2? Well, in your -- in the city 23 ordinance and under your own policy, 24 you have the criteria for a use
1 variance request. And that use 2 variance request states that a 3 petitioner like us can seek permission 4 to use land for a purpose not otherwise 5 permitted within the underlying zoning 6 district. 7 As set forth in the zoning 8 ordinance, petitioner is expected to 9 demonstrate unnecessary hardship. 10 That's the key, unnecessary hardship, 11 which will include some or all of the 12 following. Not all, but some. 13 First, the building structure 14 or land - and, of course, here we are 15 talking about land - cannot be 16 reasonably used for any of the uses 17 permitted by right. So that would be 18 the industrial uses, which we have 19 listed in one of the exhibits, or the 20 medical office type uses listed in the 21 OS district. 22 Secondly, that the need for 23 the requested variance is due to unique 24 circumstances of the property involved,
1 such as narrowness, shallowness, shape, 2 water, topography or similar physical 3 conditions, and is not due to the 4 applicant's personal or economic 5 hardship. 6 Three, that the proposed use 7 will not alter the essential character 8 of the neighborhood. 9 And, four, that the need for 10 the requested variance is not the 11 result of actions of the property owner 12 or previous property owners. 13 Now, unnecessary hardship, as 14 referenced in the application, Black's 15 Law Dictionary says that, "Within a 16 zoning ordinance, so as to authorize 17 granting of a variance of such land or 18 such ground if land cannot 19 reasonably" -- I'm sorry, I was jumping 20 head. 21 "Within a zoning ordinance, 22 so as to authorize granting of a 23 variance of such ground if land cannot 24 yield a reasonable return if used only
1 for the purposes allowed in the zone. 2 The plight of the owner is due to 3 unique circumstances, not general 4 conditions of the neighborhood, and use 5 to be authorized will not alter the 6 essential character of the locality. 7 The land cannot reasonably be used for 8 any of the uses permitted by right." 9 Then we went ahead and cited 10 some Michigan cases, and I just shortly 11 want to highlight some of the lines 12 from those cases. 13 The Jesus Center Versus 14 Farmington Hills Zoning Board case 15 said, "Because zones established by 16 ordinance will not always reflect the 17 realities of land controlled by the 18 zoning ordinance, the City and Village 19 Zoning Act provides a process by which 20 a property owner may seek a variance 21 from the application of the ordinance." 22 Then from Ratcliff, a 23 textbook on zoning, "Unnecessary 24 hardship must show credible proof that
1 the property will not yield a 2 reasonable return if used only for 3 purpose allowed by the ordinance, or 4 must establish that the zoning gives 5 rise to hardship, amounting to virtual 6 confiscation, or the disadvantage must 7 be so great as to prohibit the owner 8 from all reasonable use of the property 9 allowed by the zoning ordinance." 10 In the Jansen case, again, 11 the zoning board of appeals case in 12 Michigan where the ZBA determined that 13 the landowner made the requisite 14 showing of financial hardship, and that 15 the compatibility of the proposed use 16 was within the character of the 17 surrounding properties, there the ZBA 18 allowed construction of multiple-family 19 dwellings at the request of the 20 property owner. 21 There is other cases. The 22 Puritan Greenfield case says, "That the 23 function of the board of zoning appeals 24 is to protect the community against
1 usable land remaining idle, and that 2 purpose, which gives definition to 3 unnecessary hardship," and continuing, 4 "since the main purpose of allowing 5 variances is to prevent land from being 6 rendered useless. Unnecessary hardship 7 can best be defined as a situation 8 where, in the absence of a variance, no 9 feasible use can be made of the land." 10 Now, where do we go from 11 here? Let's talk about this property. 12 First of all, as we told you, we have 13 Kroger as an entity that is willing to 14 buy acreage from this to build a 15 Kroger. They were going to pay five 16 million dollars for the purchase of 17 their acreage, of seven acres. 18 Also, with the completion of 19 this project, the rate of return on the 20 investment was going to be about 15 21 percent annually of the investment. 22 So, when you look at the property and 23 the financial hardship, the unnecessary 24 hardship, that is something that the
1 case law allows you to take 2 consideration of. 3 So, has Mr. Weiss, Novi Ten 4 Associates, suffered a financial 5 hardship? Well, obviously, they have, 6 because these projects cannot go 7 forward with those monies involved. 8 Now, let's talk about the 9 usefulness of this property. And this 10 is laid out in here, but it's very 11 important to go over. As you know, as 12 explained, Mr. Weiss has owned this 13 property for about 30 years. He 14 actually owned it while the Erwins - 15 everybody remembers the Erwins - 16 while they had their orchards there. 17 They rented from him, all right, over 18 the last -- he actually bought it from 19 them many years ago, so he's had it 20 that long. He's had it ready for 21 development that long. 22 It's been pretty much zoned, 23 been master-planned commercial, as you 24 see in here, through the '99 master
1 plan. Then it became commercial again. 2 And then it became a special project 3 area for the last two times the master 4 plan was looked, at until the very last 5 time that it came up last year. So 6 this property all this time has been 7 zoned industrial. 8 And had there been any 9 offers? No, there has been no offers 10 for developments. Has he been looking 11 for offers? Certainly, he's been 12 looking for offers. Every landowner 13 looks for offers for projects. But 14 there has been nothing there. 15 Now, what does the future say 16 for this property? Well, even in your 17 planning department's own reports that 18 are set forth in the attachment, we 19 came up with certain facts regarding 20 the use of this property, the future 21 use. I want to get to that page, 22 because it happens to be close to the 23 end. 24 What the planning
1 department's documents show is that in 2 currently built industrial buildings, 3 the vacancy rate is between 16 and 21 4 percent. That's buildings that are 5 constructed. Actually, within a square 6 mile of this site, there is over 7 300,000 square feet of industrial 8 buildings that are empty. In fact, 9 adjacent to the east is a 110,000 10 square foot industrial building that's 11 been vacant for about five years. 12 Down on Nine Mile, just about 13 a mile away, there is additional 14 buildings. I know of two right offhand 15 that are, again, 100,000 square feet 16 plus, that have been empty for at least 17 two years. 18 So, here you have a need 19 of -- at least the city perceives a 20 need to have industrially-zoned 21 property when you already have 16 to 21 22 percent of the existing industrial 23 buildings vacant. But yet the city 24 still says, "We need more industrial
1 property." 2 Well, how about vacant 3 industrial property? The planning 4 department's own reports stated that 5 it's expected there will be no use for 6 additional industrial land for between 7 19 and 48 years in the future. This is 8 a piece of vacant land. So, not only 9 do you have 16 to 21 percent of 10 existing buildings vacant, industrial, 11 but, the city's own reports say for at 12 least another 19, minimum of 19 years, 13 you won't need any more industrial 14 land, all the way up to possibly 48. 15 So, is this property useless 16 to be used as industrial land today? 17 We say certainly it is, because the 18 city's own records and documents show 19 that it can't possibly be used for 20 another 19 years. I would hope, and I 21 really haven't looked, that the value 22 of this property on the city's 23 assessment roll is almost zero. 24 Because if it can't be used today, it
1 hasn't been used for 30 years in the 2 past and it can't be used for at least 3 19 years in the future as industrial 4 property; it has no value. And that's 5 why there is a hardship applicable to 6 this property based upon the city's own 7 records. 8 Now, why do we need something 9 there like B-2 uses? Well, within the 10 documentation there is a market study 11 done by the Chesapeake Group. 12 Coincidentally, the Chesapeake Group a 13 few years before they did this study 14 did the city's own study on what the 15 city needed for businesses in the 16 community. The same Chesapeake Group 17 did the report for Mr. Weiss and showed 18 that, yes, in fact, there is a need for 19 a grocery store and other commercial 20 uses at this site in the city. 21 Then, based upon that market 22 study report, he went and had another 23 report done by the Strategic Edge 24 Group. This Strategic Edge Group went
1 out and talked to 300 different people 2 in the city, randomly 300 people, and 3 asked them about a grocery store and 4 other commercial in this particular 5 area. What they said was in the 6 consumer survey is that 78 percent of 7 the responses, 78 percent said that 8 they were very likely or somewhat 9 likely to shop at a grocery store 10 companion commercial at this location. 11 And why is this location so 12 important? Well, think about it. 13 Think about grocery stores in Novi. 14 How many do we have? Well, you would 15 be surprised. In Novi, we really only 16 have the Kroger store up on Grand River 17 and Beck, and that was built about ten 18 years ago. Then we have a Busch's 19 store that took over the old Farmer 20 Jack at Ten Mile and Meadowbrook. 21 And that's only about a half a store 22 because of its size; it can't expand in 23 where it is. And then you have Better 24 Foods, and that's really about it.
1 You have grocery stores 2 outside of Novi. You got Meijer's on 3 the south side; you got Meijer's on the 4 other side. You've got Costco to go 5 to. But as far as a pure grocery store 6 is concerned - I'm not talking about 7 your convenient store or your 7-Elevens 8 or gas stations, but a true grocery 9 store - Novi is served by roughly 10 one-and-a-half stores, and that's for 11 55,000 people. That's why the market 12 study was so adamant in its conclusion 13 that, yes, Novi needs additional 14 grocery stores. 15 And when they looked at this 16 location and the surrounding 17 residential area, that is why 78 18 percent of the respondents said, "Yes, 19 this is the place where we will go." 20 So, now, what have we 21 established so far? We have 22 established that we have a use for the 23 property that's documented by market 24 studies and by consumer research. And
1 then we showed you that the existing 2 use of this land as industrial just 3 isn't viable; it isn't viable at all. 4 So, the -- where we are then 5 is really establishing your four 6 criteria through what we have already. 7 As far as the land cannot be reasonably 8 used for the uses permitted, we have 9 established that through the city's own 10 records. It's vacant; it's not going 11 to be even ready for development for 19 12 years. 13 Number two, that the need for 14 the requested variance is due to unique 15 circumstances of the property. The 16 property has been like this for 30 17 years, and it's going to be the same. 18 My client has not changed anything in 19 his ownership of this other than for 20 the last ten years he's been working on 21 this. He's been working on putting the 22 Kroger deal together. He finally got 23 that done, and here we go again. 24 One of the reasons why it
1 didn't go through earlier is in 2004 we 2 brought this project forward, and we 3 did the PRO similar, only the project 4 was much larger; it's since been 5 shrunk. We came to the planning 6 commission in December of 2004, and the 7 planning commission and the city 8 basically said, "Listen, we are waiting 9 for the improvements to be done at Ten 10 Mile and Novi Road." Remember, that 11 was just a very small intersection. 12 Now, of course, it's five lanes pretty 13 much in all directions. The city said, 14 "Wait. Put your project on hold and 15 come back when that intersection is 16 improved." 17 So, Mr. Weiss did. We came 18 back two years ago, started the project 19 again. And after he waited all that 20 time, after he was willing to pay the 21 city 400,000 for road improvements, 22 park improvements and other 23 improvements as part of the PRO, he was 24 turned down.
1 The third item, that the 2 proposed use will not alter the 3 essential character of the 4 neighborhood. Well, you know that 5 neighborhood, what's around there. 6 Carmine's going to tell you a little 7 bit more from a planning perspective 8 what that means. But, you know to the 9 north on Ten Mile Road you have 10 industrial buildings. To the east you 11 have industrial buildings. To the 12 south, he owns all of that, remember. 13 He owns everything to the south. It's 14 vacant until you get to the sports club 15 and across the street where you got 16 Walgreen's on the corner. And then 17 across the street you have offices. So 18 the character of the neighborhood is 19 not going change at all by having a 20 grocery store and ancillary commercial 21 items there. 22 The fourth thing, that the 23 need for the requested variance is not 24 the result of actions of the property
1 owner. Well, he's not done anything 2 but own the property. The city keeps 3 bouncing back and forth on the uses of 4 this property in its master plan 5 throughout all of these years. 6 So, we satisfied all those 7 four criteria. And before I wind up, 8 I'm going to have Carmine Avantini come 9 up and just verify -- did you get his 10 letter, by the way, as part of your 11 packet yesterday? It would have come 12 in yesterday from LSL Planning. 13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes. 14 MR. QUINN: Okay. Carmine, 15 why don't you come up and verify the 16 report. 17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: If you can 18 be brief, sir. Mr. Quinn did a nice 19 job. You are limited to five minutes. 20 He's been about 17 to 18. 21 MR. AVANTINI: I understand. 22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I 23 understand this is more complex. 24 MR. AVANTINI: And we
1 appreciate your indulgence. 2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: No 3 problem. 4 MR. AVANTINI: Just a couple 5 of key points that I included in here 6 is that this particular site, when you 7 look at all the other industrial and 8 office sites within the community, is 9 really at a competitive disadvantage, 10 in addition to the vacancy rate that 11 Mr. Quinn had just indicated. When you 12 look at other industrial sites, in 13 particular, there are, including in 14 your community and surrounding 15 communities, if you are an industrial 16 user looking for space, this is not one 17 of the first places you would go to. 18 Another thing I want to point 19 out, too, is the fact that currently 20 within this area and within the 21 community, you do have to travel a 22 great distance if you want to go to -- 23 other than Busch's, if you want to go 24 to grocery stores, you have to travel
1 miles to get there. That further 2 impacts the traffic throughout the 3 community, creates additional 4 congestion, uses additional fuel, air 5 emissions and so forth. So, if we are 6 really looking for a sustainable 7 community, it makes sense to have 8 convenience commercially located near 9 the residential areas, which this 10 particular site meets that condition. 11 I know -- just one last 12 thing. One of the other items that 13 came up during the re-zoning, was the 14 fact that you do have Busch's in a 15 shopping center nearby, and this could 16 potentially create competition for that 17 center. Having lived across the street 18 from that center for six years, not all 19 that long ago, it hasn't changed much 20 in that frame of time. And, you know, 21 it's been 100 percent full for many 22 years. There is not a lot of 23 investment that's gone on in that 24 particular center. A little
1 competition nearby may help bring some 2 improvements to that particular site. 3 MR. QUINN: Just in 4 conclusion -- thank you, Carmine. We 5 would like you to grant as a use for 6 this property, as requested, the B-2 7 uses under the ordinance, with the 8 exception of any automobile-related 9 uses, which can be excluded. 10 What's good about that, by 11 granting the B-2 uses, you control -- 12 you, as the ZBA, control the 13 development of the B-2 uses. 14 Now, the diagram here on the 15 panel of the overhead is what we 16 propose to the city during our site 17 plan, PRO. We would abide by that, but 18 you have control over what the B-2 will 19 look like. 20 So, we appreciate a positive 21 vote. We are here to answer any 22 questions you might have. And thank 23 you very much for your attention. 24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you,
1 Mr. Quinn. 2 Is there anyone in the 3 audience who would like to make a 4 comment on this specific case, please 5 raise your hand and be recognized. 6 Seeing none, the public remarks section 7 will be closed. 8 Next, I will ask the 9 secretary to read any correspondence we 10 have. 11 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, there 12 were 44 notices mailed, zero responses, 13 and two mail returned. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. 15 Next, any comments from the city, other 16 than what was already provided? 17 Mr. Schultz. 18 MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair, 19 thank you. Just a couple. I guess the 20 first couple are clarifications. 21 I think counsel said that 22 what you are here doing today is 23 sitting as a quasi-judicial body 24 hearing an appeal. I think those were
1 the words. It's really not I think 2 what you are doing today. 3 The city council acted on it 4 with the Planned Rezoning Overlay, 5 didn't approve it, made its motion. 6 That's not being appealed to you. You 7 don't have the authority to do it. 8 You are being asked a 9 separate question. Should you grant a 10 use variance? And Mr. Quinn did go 11 through the four standards for that. 12 And I guess I just want to clarify 13 that, too. 14 I understand that he cited 15 the rules of procedure when he talks 16 about meeting some of these or all of 17 these. But the ordinance and the case 18 law is pretty clear. You go through 19 all four, and they need to meet all 20 four parts of the test. And I guess -- 21 so those are the two clarifications. 22 So, the other is just a 23 general comment. I don't know, maybe 24 Mr. Quinn can address. A number of
1 these points that were made by Mr. 2 Quinn have been sort of directly 3 addressed and sort of factually 4 disputed by the materials that were 5 submitted by your planning consultant 6 and your planning staff. 7 Our office didn't actually 8 provide anything specifically to the 9 ZBA, but Ron Arroyo's office did do a 10 report, and the planning staff did an 11 extensive report going through a number 12 of the items Mr. Quinn talked about at 13 length. I guess I don't know whether 14 or not he picked up that packet or had 15 a chance to review it. That may be 16 relevant to what he asks you to do 17 tonight. 18 But, you have in your hands 19 and in the packet, sort of an extensive 20 review of the same items Mr. Quinn just 21 went through. And, obviously, 22 Mr. Boulard and planning staff are here 23 to supplement those and answer any 24 questions you might have.
1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. I 2 will open now for the board for 3 questions of the applicant or the city. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: Question for 5 Mr. Schultz. Will you kindly explain 6 to me and the people in the audience 7 and people that come, what is a PRO? 8 MR. SCHULTZ: Okay. The PRO 9 is a sort of shorthand reference to the 10 planned rezoning overlay. So, the 11 zoning on this property is OS-1 and 12 I-1. And Mr. Weiss came in, the 13 applicant came in and said, "I don't 14 want to use the property for either of 15 those district uses. I want to put a 16 specific development on here or a 17 specific conceptual plan for 18 development that's really retail and 19 other uses." 20 The city has a provision in 21 its ordinance as part of an amendment 22 to the zoning map where you can lay 23 over that existing I-1 and OS-1, a 24 rezoning, called a planned rezoning,
1 that has specific uses that are called 2 out and a specific concept plan that's 3 shown for what would be put on it. 4 So, Weiss came forward, the 5 applicant came forward, and proposed on 6 part of it sort of down Ten Mile 7 Road -- yeah, Ten Mile Road frontage, a 8 Kroger store and then sort of a related 9 retail development. And then on some 10 of the other areas they proposed sort 11 of this open use that, you know, showed 12 plans, conceptual plans, but said, 13 "We'll deal with what actually might go 14 in there later as another PRO 15 improvement." And so the city -- so 16 that's a request to essentially rezone 17 it for a particular concept plan. 18 That went to the planning 19 commission, which made its 20 recommendation of approval. But it 21 went to the city council, which is the 22 approving authority, and they looked at 23 it and said, "We don't think you have 24 met the standards for a planned
1 rezoning overlay," and they denied the 2 motion. And I think a copy of that is 3 in your packet of materials. 4 So, that is done. The 5 request for the PRO is completed, and 6 review's been completed, and the city 7 council did not approve. 8 The appeal from that, or the 9 remedy for the applicant for that 10 denial from city council is to go to 11 the Oakland County Circuit Court and 12 say, "They should have approved it." 13 The reason they are here tonight is 14 before they can do that, they have to 15 come to the ZBA and ask for a use 16 variance - which is what they have done 17 here tonight - so that when they get to 18 the circuit court, the city doesn't 19 say, or the court doesn't say, "I'm not 20 ready to review your circuit court suit 21 on the PRO. You didn't ask the ZBA for 22 a different kind of relief for the same 23 basic result." 24 So, this is them asking, not
1 exactly the same, for kind of what they 2 were asking the city council for, but 3 in concept of a use variance. And 4 their problem, and I think maybe 5 "problem" is not the right word. Their 6 task, as Mr. Quinn noted, is a little 7 different than usual, and a pretty 8 serious standard. Essentially, they 9 have to show they don't have any use of 10 that property without you telling them 11 that they can use it for their proposed 12 use. 13 The city staff went through 14 those four standards, and essentially 15 came to the conclusion they haven't 16 actually proved that basic concept. 17 They really focused more on why they 18 want the Kroger use there or retail 19 uses there as opposed to why they can't 20 use it for the office or industrial 21 use. 22 They submitted their 23 materials, and city staff responded to 24 those. You have all those in front of
1 you. You are going through tonight 2 those four steps to see whether or not 3 they have met their burden of proof on 4 the use variance. 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other 7 questions of the applicant? 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Not at this 9 point; maybe later on. 10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. 11 Member Skelcy. 12 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you, 13 Mr. Chairman. 14 Mr. Quinn. 15 MR. QUINN: Yes. 16 MEMBER SKELCY: Would you 17 agree that the property could be used 18 for a medical building? 19 MR. QUINN: The OS-1 part? 20 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 21 MR. QUINN: Perhaps, yes. 22 MEMBER SKELCY: Do you also 23 agree that the light industrial portion 24 of the land could also -- could be used
1 for light industrial-type activity? 2 MR. QUINN: I think there the 3 proof is in the pudding. There is 4 absolutely no demand for any industrial 5 use at that property. 6 MEMBER SKELCY: But the 7 question is it could be used for that, 8 could it not? 9 MR. QUINN: It could, at some 10 point in the future. 11 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. Now, 12 what attempts did Mr. Weiss make, if 13 any, to use it for something such as 14 industrial or medical? 15 MR. QUINN: Well, until he 16 got Kroger in line, this property has 17 been available for industrial use for 18 the first 20 some years. 19 MEMBER SKELCY: What efforts 20 did he make to attempt to develop it 21 for either medical or light industrial? 22 MR. QUINN: It was -- as I 23 recall, it was listed with a realtor 24 for that use for quite a number of
1 years. I don't know exactly how many 2 years. 3 MEMBER SKELCY: And what else 4 did he do besides list it? Anything 5 else? 6 MR. QUINN: Well, what else 7 he did is in the rear portion, he 8 donated all the land for the city -- to 9 the city for the ice arena, which was 10 part of his property. And in an effort 11 to have that Arena Drive built so that 12 industrial uses would come off of it. 13 That was all part of the plan. 14 So he gave about three 15 million dollars' worth of property to 16 the city. The city built the road, 17 then the one arena was built, the 18 sports arena. And the rest of it 19 attached to that road has always been 20 marketed for industrial, and never 21 happened. And then the frontage on Ten 22 Mile Road never happened for 23 industrial, also. 24 MEMBER SKELCY: All right.
1 But, basically, all he did was listed 2 it? Doesn't sound like with regard to 3 the remaining portion he did anything 4 to actively try to develop it except 5 list it. He didn't go out and solicit? 6 MR. QUINN: You have to 7 remember, it's hard to do when you have 8 so much industrial vacancy in the city. 9 Not many people want to build on vacant 10 land when they can move into an 11 existing building and they don't have 12 to spend the construction dollars 13 for. 14 MEMBER SKELCY: But he didn't 15 go out and try to solicit a buyer or a 16 development like he did with Kroger? 17 MR. QUINN: No, actually, 18 because Kroger kind of came to him. 19 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. How 20 did Kroger come to him? 21 MR. QUINN: Kroger -- 22 Mr. Rick Ragsdale, which is the 23 regional director for Kroger, lives in 24 Novi. He is the one that brought the
1 Kroger Regional Headquarters to Grand 2 River in Novi. They have been looking 3 in Novi to have a second store ever 4 since they built the first store, which 5 is about ten years ago. So they have 6 been looking diligently in Novi. And 7 this was the prime site based on the 8 market surveys and all the consumer 9 information they have obtained. 10 MEMBER SKELCY: Now, during 11 your presentation, you didn't talk 12 about the topography or anything 13 related to that in terms of building 14 for industrial or medical. It doesn't 15 seem that there is any problems along 16 Ten Mile at all. 17 MR. QUINN: Not the frontage. 18 The property slopes off quite a bit, as 19 you see. And then back about 300 20 feet, there is the huge Chapman Creek 21 goes through there, and there is a 22 depression of about 30 feet that goes 23 through the entire thing. That's 24 where - I put that up again - that's
1 where the commercial projects stopped 2 right there. 3 MEMBER SKELCY: I guess if 4 you could build a Kroger there, and if 5 you could build anything else along 6 those two pieces of property, you could 7 certainly build a light industrial 8 building, could you not? 9 MR. QUINN: Yes. As part of 10 a PRO, we have to submit a conceptual 11 plan of what could be built there. And 12 I think it was another 100,000 square 13 foot industrial building, just like -- 14 that's next door that's vacant. That's 15 shown on our concept plan. 16 MEMBER SKELCY: In other 17 words, there is nothing wrong with the 18 topography of the land that prevents 19 you from using it for a medical 20 building? 21 MR. QUINN: Correct. 22 MEMBER SKELCY: Or for light 23 industrial? 24 MR. QUINN: That's correct.
1 MEMBER SKELCY: Those are all 2 the questions I have. Thank you. 3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member 4 Gedeon. 5 MEMBER GEDEON: Yeah, I would 6 like to start off with a comment 7 regarding your presentation about the 8 number of grocery stores in Novi. And 9 I don't find that argument very 10 persuasive, given that the Meijer 11 grocery store, super center, is right 12 around the immediate surroundings of 13 Novi. To some residences, a Meijer 14 directly across the border might be 15 closer to the grocery store than within 16 the city limits. I'm not sure why you 17 focused exclusively on the grocery 18 stores within the city limits. 19 Also, you failed to mention 20 the Walmart grocery store, which will 21 be built just a couple miles north of 22 there on the Grand River Town Center 23 area. 24 MR. QUINN: Yeah, the reason
1 for that is there is a difference 2 between what we will call a regional 3 store like a Meijer's or a Walmart, or 4 a -- what's the other -- Costco, 5 something like that, and a grocery 6 store. A grocery store, you go in, you 7 buy groceries, and that's it. You 8 don't have to worry about people that 9 are there buying nuts and screws and 10 plywood and sports equipment and 11 everything else. That's why there is a 12 differentiation in the market study 13 from a grocery store to what we will 14 call a regional store like a Meijer's. 15 That's what I was pertaining to. 16 MEMBER GEDEON: Okay. I 17 understand that, but in the survey that 18 you presented to us, didn't it state 19 that most of the people surveyed prefer 20 the Meijer's? 21 MR. QUINN: I don't recall it 22 being stated that way. 23 MEMBER GEDEON: Or that was 24 their most frequent grocery store that
1 they went to. 2 MR. QUINN: Yes, it is. The 3 point of that is because they don't 4 have an alternative. 5 MEMBER GEDEON: Well, that's 6 one interpretation. It could be a 7 preference. 8 MR. QUINN: Again, it's their 9 preference because they don't have a 10 typical grocery store to go to. 11 MEMBER GEDEON: Okay. Well, 12 anyway, I just wanted to get that out. 13 Second point, you said that 14 the current owner has owned the 15 property for 30 some years. 16 MR. QUINN: Right. 17 MEMBER GEDEON: Do you feel 18 that -- do you know if the property has 19 appreciated in those 30 years? 20 Presumably, 30 years is a pretty long 21 time span. Property values have gone 22 up quite a bit in Novi. You know, the 23 last few years notwithstanding. 24 MR. QUINN: Yeah, I was just
1 thinking about my house value I just 2 got; I think they have gone down about 3 30 years' worth. No, I really don't. 4 I don't have those numbers. 5 MEMBER GEDEON: Okay. So you 6 are not willing to speculate if the 7 property value has increased over 8 30 years? 9 MR. QUINN: You would assume 10 that it's gone up at least a dollar, so 11 it has gone up, sure. 12 MEMBER GEDEON: And noting 13 the possible uses for property, do you 14 recognize use as -- an investment as a 15 possible use of the property? 16 MR. QUINN: No, not given the 17 19-year vacancy of industrial -- 18 19-year future use where this property 19 is not going to be used. That's an 20 investment -- by paying taxes for 30 21 years and another 19 years, that's a 22 losing investment. 23 MEMBER GEDEON: Okay. But, I 24 mean, if it was shown that property
1 taxes -- even after property taxes, 2 that the value has increased, couldn't 3 holding it for investment purposes and 4 selling it as property values increase 5 sometime in the future be considered an 6 acceptable use of the property? 7 MR. QUINN: In this 8 circumstance, I don't think so. 9 MEMBER GEDEON: Okay. Thank 10 you. 11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other 12 questions or concerns of the board? 13 Member Krieger. 14 MEMBER KRIEGER: I'm not too 15 sure where to direct this, to the city 16 or Mr. Quinn. 17 For the master plan, since 18 it's come under review, and I looked in 19 the internet under minutes, there is 20 not as much detail as I had hoped for. 21 I do want to recognize and 22 thank Mr. Weiss for his donation to the 23 city of the sports club property and 24 the ice rink. The intent -- I was
1 always wondering where that road was 2 going to go besides turning right. 3 But for the master plan, if 4 the petitioner, Mr. Weiss, I didn't see 5 that in the minutes that he had come to 6 the city during public input and said, 7 "Look, I'm having this difficulty with 8 industrial use for the master plan, I'd 9 like to look at some other alternative. 10 This was something that -- this is 11 another opportunity that I might be 12 able to use this property so the 13 hardship could be met." 14 MR. QUINN: Yes, I can tell 15 you, Ms. Krieger, that we were part of 16 the master plan review of this from day 17 one. I can't tell you how many 18 meetings we attended with them. And, 19 in fact, from my standpoint, the sad 20 part of it is, because of the lack of 21 finalization with the Kroger contract, 22 we couldn't get in front of the 23 planning commission before the master 24 plan was approved. We were there the
1 same night. They were case number one; 2 they approved the master plan. We were 3 case number two, and then they said, 4 "Sorry, we have to use the fact that 5 case number one adopted the master 6 plan, and now you don't fit with the 7 master plan anymore." So, that's how 8 it all worked out at the last meeting. 9 The same meeting, they were one, we 10 were two. Could we have been one on 11 that agenda? Certainly. The city 12 chose to put us after the master plan 13 consideration. 14 MEMBER KRIEGER: Wasn't there 15 audience participation? 16 MR. QUINN: Oh, yeah. We 17 participated, yes. 18 MEMBER KRIEGER: And also 19 made a decision you were number two? I 20 didn't understand. 21 MR. QUINN: Yeah, I 22 participated in the audience 23 participation. 24 MEMBER KRIEGER: That was my
1 first question for now. 2 MR. SCHULTZ: I guess I kind 3 of need to respond. 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Go ahead, 5 Mr. Schultz. 6 MR. SCHULTZ: To the sort of 7 tone of Mr. Quinn's comments. The 8 master plan went on for a long time. I 9 think that PRO could have gone on a 10 different kind of track if anybody 11 wanted it to, including the applicant. 12 The planning commission actually was -- 13 I believe it was the planning 14 commission that acted the night that 15 Mr. Quinn is talking about. 16 MR. QUINN: That's correct. 17 MR. SCHULTZ: Planning 18 commission recommends and planning 19 commission adopts the master plan. The 20 city council decision, which came a 21 month later, obviously took into 22 account the master plan, but that's 23 because the master plan amendment had 24 been cooking for the last couple years,
1 and it was in place. 2 The planning commission - 3 actually, the minutes will reflect - 4 asked the question, you know, "Even 5 with the master plan, if we think this 6 is appropriate use of the property, 7 what should we do?" So, it was not as 8 open and shut, frankly, as counsel 9 says, "It's already up; we can't 10 consider it anymore." It was a full 11 and serious consideration of the PRO 12 request in the normal course. 13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other 14 questions or comments by the board? 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: I just had 16 one comment and question for the -- 17 primarily for the city and Mr. Schultz. 18 Mr. Quinn has made some 19 interesting points, and I would like 20 some kind of response from the city, 21 planning department and Mr. Schultz, 22 point by point about some of the issues 23 he has raised. And maybe we can come 24 back and get some more information on
1 this area before we finally vote on it. 2 Thank you. 3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Did you 4 want to say anything? 5 MR. SCHULTZ: I guess it 6 would not befall to me to do any 7 point-by-point response. The planning 8 department and Mr. Arroyo essentially 9 put together a point-by-point response, 10 which they could go through tonight. 11 You know, I think the board maybe might 12 ask Mr. Quinn if he wants an 13 opportunity to take a look at that if, 14 for some reason, he hasn't gotten it 15 before tonight. I will just put that 16 out there as an opportunity for 17 Ms. McBeth or Ms. Kapelanski could do 18 point by point tonight. 19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. I 20 just have a couple comments myself. 21 I've seen the response information 22 submitted by the city. I view this 23 entire project, the 27 plus acres, to 24 me it seems more of a zoning issue as
1 opposed to a variance. I understand 2 you have to exhaust remedies and so 3 forth. And this is a large parcel of 4 land, clearly can be used for the 5 purposes its zoned for. I understand 6 you may have issues with the zoning. 7 To me, the zoning rules are 8 more, you know, future looking and more 9 permanent in nature. When the city 10 comes up - and they are the 11 legislators, not us - so to come up 12 with an idea that this is going to be 13 residential and this is light 14 industrial or office service, that's 15 not meant to take into consideration 16 necessarily a dip in the economy. And 17 maybe you can't build in industrial, or 18 maybe office is not necessarily 19 required at this. It's like a 20 petitioner coming up and having some 21 type of residential zoning saying, 22 "Residential is not selling. Let me 23 put up a liquor store there or a bar or 24 a gas station," or something to that
1 effect. They could make those type of 2 arguments, too. And those are really 3 zoning issues to me as opposed to use 4 variances. 5 Personally, when I looked 6 item by item at the requirements that 7 you are responsible to illustrate to 8 us, it does not appear to me that you 9 meet all of the requirements necessary 10 for a use variance. And, at this 11 point, I would not be in support. 12 Anybody else who would like 13 to make a comment or question of the 14 petitioner? Member Ibe. 15 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Quinn. 16 MR. QUINN: Yes, sir. 17 MEMBER IBE: I'm just going 18 to focus on what the guidelines are 19 here for us to arrive at some kind of 20 conclusion in the case. And I was 21 looking at the first one, which is what 22 other property cannot be reasonably 23 used for any of the uses permitted? I 24 think we already addressed that issue,
1 so I'm going to move to the second one, 2 which I find a little bit more 3 troubling. 4 Other than the Kroger, that 5 is, which is due to the unique 6 circumstances, would that be correct? 7 MR. QUINN: Yes. 8 MEMBER IBE: For grocery 9 shopping? 10 MR. QUINN: One of them, 11 yes. 12 MEMBER IBE: What other 13 unique circumstances do you -- maybe I 14 didn't get it in your first 15 presentation. Other than the need for 16 that, what other unique circumstances 17 do we have? 18 MR. QUINN: The unique 19 circumstances is the fact that this 20 property has been not able to be used 21 for the zoning purpose for 30 years in 22 the past. And for the next 19 to the 23 next 48 years, it is not scheduled to 24 be used for light industrial purposes,
1 according to the city's own studies. 2 That is unique unto this property. 3 MEMBER IBE: And what about 4 in terms of the narrowness or 5 shallowness or shape of the property? 6 Does that really come into play as to 7 why you wish to not propose a different 8 use of the property? 9 MR. QUINN: No, no, as far as 10 that for the use, no, those types of 11 things really don't apply to this 12 situation. 13 MEMBER IBE: Very well. I 14 think one of the -- I think one of my 15 colleagues asked you a question, and 16 I'm going to go back again on your last 17 comment. The uniqueness you talk 18 about, the need for grocery, you base 19 it on this survey that says people have 20 grocery shopping in the cities. 21 MR. QUINN: Market study, 22 right. 23 MEMBER IBE: And you don't 24 consider the Meijers that are located I
1 think west and south of our borders, 2 you don't consider that to be part 3 of -- accessible to Novi residents? 4 MR. QUINN: No, that's, 5 again, a different type of grocery 6 store. That's a super store, a super 7 center, with things that are sold other 8 than groceries. The market study was 9 specific to grocery stores itself and 10 grocery uses. 11 When people, in my opinion, 12 want to go grocery shopping, they want 13 to go to a grocery store, buy their 14 meat, buy their fruit, buy their 15 vegetables, and leave as quickly as 16 they can. They don't want to be in the 17 same checkout lines as people buying 18 clothes, people buying sports 19 equipment, people buying cameras and 20 video things. That's the difference 21 between a super store like that and a 22 true grocery store. 23 MEMBER IBE: Obviously, that 24 is not based on any kind of scientific
1 study. Is that your personal opinion, 2 or how do you come to that conclusion? 3 MR. QUINN: I watch my wife 4 shop. I think that's a scientific 5 study. 6 MEMBER IBE: Would you also 7 agree, sir, that the last maybe 20 8 years, the demographics has really 9 changed, and the way people shop has 10 really changed? That's obviously at 11 least (inaudible) Walmart, and places 12 where they don't have Walmart and 13 places they don't have Meijers. 14 Because people want to have one place 15 where they can shop for so many things. 16 So, the uniqueness of having a grocery 17 store where you can buy meat and 18 potatoes is not as unique anymore. And 19 the concept, obviously, was good when, 20 you know, when we had it maybe 25 years 21 ago. But as people are more mobile, 22 they want to go to a place and be able 23 to -- especially with the price of gas 24 right now, who wants to drive around to
1 two, three different stores? 2 MR. QUINN: Good question. 3 MEMBER IBE: Wouldn't you 4 prefer to go to Meijer's and buy your 5 clothes and also buy your meat and 6 potatoes? 7 MR. QUINN: No, I guess I 8 would rather go to some other clothing 9 store. 10 MEMBER IBE: Absolutely. 11 Thank you, Mr. Quinn. I appreciate 12 your time. 13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: 14 Mr. Boulard. 15 MR. BOULARD: If I might, I 16 might ask Ms. McBeth to address the 17 reference to the 18 to 48 years and so 18 on, please. 19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Please. 20 MR. BOULARD: How that's 21 manifested in the zoning ordinance. 22 MS. MCBETH: Thank you. Good 23 evening, I'm Barbara McBeth from the 24 planning department.
1 We did provide some 2 information in the report that included 3 the master plan study and which 4 included a market analysis, and that 5 was in the 2007 report. And the city 6 did work with our consultant, Ron 7 Arroyo, and his sub-consultant, the 8 Chesapeake Group. They prepared a 9 study that looked at a variety of 10 aspects of supply and demand for 11 various land uses throughout the 12 community. And they identified that 13 with the growing residential 14 population, there would be growing 15 demand for various other land uses. 16 That was in 2007/2008. 17 In 2010, the staff undertook 18 another update to the master plan for 19 land use, really looking at the city as 20 a whole again, overall, and noting that 21 the residential component had slowed 22 down in that time frame, wasn't growing 23 as quickly as we originally 24 anticipated.
1 The study was adjusted, and a 2 number of the assumptions were modified 3 in a downward fashion. And that study 4 was again used as part of their 2010 5 master plan for land use. 6 Now, we think that the 7 applicant may be misunderstanding what 8 the statements were regarding the 9 supply of office space. There was a 10 number of comments about the current 11 mix of land uses, and the demand for 12 office and industrial space was 13 plentiful for a certain time frame. 14 But what they are not picking up from 15 the comments and from the details of 16 the study, we believe, is that nothing 17 is saying which piece of land is going 18 to be developed first for office and 19 industrial. Some of the properties 20 would obviously be more suited to 21 office and industrial land uses and 22 would probably be absorbed into the 23 market more quickly. 24 So, we are not saying this
1 piece, included as part of that 2 available land, we are not saying this 3 would have to be the last one in line 4 to be picked up and used for office and 5 industrial space; it could be one of 6 the first ones. 7 Another item that we had 8 brought to the attention in this report 9 and previously was the fact that there 10 certainly could be a big user that 11 could come in, a medical office user, 12 industrial user, could come in and 13 deplete the supply or very much greatly 14 reduce the supply of available office 15 and industrial space. 16 I think I covered what you 17 were concerned about there. 18 MR. BOULARD: Yes, thank you. 19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any 20 questions? Member Skelcy. 21 MEMBER SKELCY: I have a 22 question. I have a question. 23 MS. MCBETH: Yes. 24 MEMBER SKELCY: The majority
1 of the other properties in that area 2 are zoned industrial, office and 3 residential. So, if we were to change 4 this use variance, it would change I 5 think the character of the area based 6 on what's currently there. 7 MS. MCBETH: That is 8 certainly staff's opinion. This would 9 be another 450 feet or so of commercial 10 development along one of the more 11 prominent roads. We think that would 12 change the character of the land in 13 that way. 14 MEMBER SKELCY: All right. 15 Thank you. 16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you, 17 ma'am. Any other -- I'm sorry, 18 Mr. Boulard. 19 MR. BOULARD: I just have one 20 other question for Mr. Quinn. In view 21 of the -- in view that this originally 22 came before the board and the board had 23 requested additional information and so 24 on, I just wanted to make sure,
1 Mr. Quinn, you know, find out if he 2 will prefer to have this tabled so he 3 could look at additional information 4 and respond, or if he would rather have 5 it going forward tonight. 6 MR. QUINN: Well, it is true, 7 I didn't have a chance to look at the 8 city's reports because it wasn't 9 published as things normally are 10 online, so I wasn't aware that it had 11 been done. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: It's your 13 call now. 14 MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair, just 15 to respond to that comment. The city 16 treated it in the way it normally 17 treats all the other applications that 18 are before you tonight. I think 19 Mr. Quinn could have come in and picked 20 up the packet. I believe it was 21 available a week or so ago. 22 That question is still fair 23 to Mr. Quinn, what do you want to do? 24 MR. QUINN: That's my fault.
1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: If you 2 want, you could certainly ask the board 3 to move this to another day; it's up to 4 you. I don't know that it will 5 necessarily be moved or not, but if you 6 want time to look at that. 7 MR. QUINN: I know I'm going 8 to be here next month anyway on another 9 matter. But, no, I don't think that 10 any response that I'm going to have 11 to -- is going to change anything, to 12 be honest with you. 13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. 14 Fair enough. Any other questions or 15 comments of the board? If not, I will 16 look for a motion. Member Skelcy. 17 MEMBER SKELCY: In the matter 18 of ZBA Case No. 10-062, relating to a 19 use variance to allow land uses 20 currently provided for in Section 1401 21 in the City of Novi zoning ordinance, 22 for the B-2 zoning district on the 23 portions of parcels 22-26-101-019 and 24 22-26-101-021, zoned I-1 and OS-1
1 respectively, I move that the request 2 be denied for the following reasons: 3 Number one, with regards to 4 Section 3104.1, the ZBA has authority 5 to authorize the use in a zoning 6 district in which it is not otherwise 7 permitted, only if it is clearly shown 8 that the land cannot be used for a 9 zoned use. The applicant has failed to 10 demonstrate that the land at issue 11 cannot be used for any of the variety 12 of uses allowed in the office and/or 13 light industrial districts. The 14 applicant, instead, has focused the 15 application on the alleged desirability 16 of a Kroger store and related uses on 17 one discreet portion of the property. 18 Number two, with regard to 19 section 3104.1, the ZBA finds that the 20 spirit of the zoning ordinance would 21 not be observed or substantial justice 22 done by a change in the uses allowed to 23 retail commercial. The recent 2010 24 master plan amendments and the existing
1 ordinance reflects the intended and 2 desired use of the area. The applicant 3 made no specific reference to any 4 particular term or requirement of the 5 zoning ordinance in support of the 6 change to retail commercial uses, and 7 did not establish or even attempt to 8 establish efforts to use, market or 9 develop the property as zoned in plan. 10 In addition, the applicant 11 almost exclusively focuses on the 12 proposed Kroger store and related strip 13 mall development. The applicant does 14 not identify the uses or any specific 15 development proposals for the remaining 16 areas along Ten Mile Road and along 17 Novi Road. In other words, the 18 applicant has not indicated how those 19 areas demand specific approval of 20 retail or commercial uses now as 21 opposed to office or industrial uses. 22 In the absence of proposed uses and 23 users, the board cannot find that all 24 the B-2 uses are appropriate for the
1 entire property, or, that other uses 2 allowed in the OS-1 or I-1 districts 3 are not available. 4 Three, with regard to section 5 3104.1, the applicant has not 6 established the requirements set forth 7 for the use variances as follows: The 8 property cannot reasonably be used for 9 any of the uses permitted by right or 10 any special land use permit in the 11 zoning district in which it is located. 12 The board finds that the applicant 13 misstates the findings of the staff's 14 update to the 2007 report by the 15 Chesapeake Group. This study does not 16 support the applicant's conclusion that 17 the property will remain vacant for 18 another 18 to 48 years. 19 As indicated in the planning 20 review, prepared by the city's planning 21 review center, dated February 28 of 22 2011, and in the memorandum of Birchler 23 Arroyo Associates, also dated February 24 28, 2011, the projections in the
1 original Chesapeake Group study nor 2 staff's update do not predict which 3 land or buildings will or should be 4 utilized or when such land or buildings 5 will be utilized. 6 While there is other land and 7 there are other buildings currently 8 authorized for office and/or light 9 industrial uses, the property at issue 10 is of sufficient size and configuration 11 to allow development similar to 12 developments within such districts that 13 have recently occurred in the city. 14 One of the purposes of the 15 master plan is to make sure that there 16 is sufficient area planned for 17 particular kinds of development and 18 uses in the future. The vacancy study 19 cited does not establish that the 20 master plan and zoning for this 21 property is unsupported. The applicant 22 did not provide any information to the 23 board with regard to any efforts to 24 use, market or develop the property, as
1 permitted by the zoning ordinance. In 2 fact, the applicant expressly stated in 3 the application that it was always 4 intended to become a retail 5 development. 6 Further, today there was no 7 indication from counsel indicating that 8 there had been efforts made to actively 9 market it for medical or light 10 industrial. 11 That the need for the 12 requested variance is due to unique 13 circumstances or physical conditions of 14 the property involved, such as 15 narrowness, shallowness, shape, water, 16 topography or other similar physical 17 conditions, and is not due to the 18 applicant's personal or economic 19 hardship. The applicant did not 20 establish any unique circumstances or 21 physical conditions causing a hardship 22 for development of the property. The 23 property has roughly a third of a mile 24 frontage along Ten Mile Road and
1 approximately 450 feet of frontage 2 along Novi Road. While there are 3 environmental features on the property, 4 there is significant buildable space 5 near both the Ten Mile frontage and the 6 Novi Road frontage, where the 7 topography is reasonably flat and 8 public utilities are available. 9 In addition, today counsel 10 admitted that the property could be 11 used for both medical and industrial 12 use based on the topography of the 13 land. 14 That the proposed use will 15 not alter the essential character of 16 the neighborhood. As indicated in the 17 planning review center report and the 18 Birchler Arroyo report, the master plan 19 for this property has been primarily 20 office and/or industrial since 1993, 21 with only a brief exception between 22 1999 and 2001. It has not been master 23 planned for commercial use since 1993, 24 as asserted by the applicant.
1 The majority of other 2 properties in the surrounding area are 3 zoned and master planned for 4 industrial, office and residential 5 uses. Allowing commercial or retail 6 uses on the nearly one-third-mile long 7 stretch of Ten Mile from Novi Road to 8 the railroad tracks would substantially 9 change the character of the area from a 10 residential and industrial office 11 corridor with limited commercial uses, 12 to a residential and commercial 13 corridor. 14 The applicant really only 15 addresses the effect of the proposed 16 Kroger store and related strip mall. 17 The applicant does not discuss the 18 specific proposed uses for the 19 remaining Ten Mile frontage or the 20 remaining Novi Road frontage. Those 21 uses and potential uses cannot be 22 evaluated by this board under those 23 circumstances. 24 The October 2008 Chesapeake
1 Group study, which the applicant shows 2 market support for a grocery store and 3 related retail center is out-dated. 4 The letter from Chesapeake Group dated 5 February 28, 2011, supersedes any 6 previous findings by Chesapeake Group 7 in that regard. 8 The need for the requested 9 variance is not the result of actions 10 of the property owner and previous 11 owners. For example, it's not 12 self-created. 13 While the applicant indicates 14 the property was always intended to be 15 used for commercial or retail purposes, 16 a substantial amount of growth and 17 development in the City of Novi over 18 the past 30 years has involved office 19 and industrial development. The 20 applicant has not addressed any efforts 21 made to use, market or develop the 22 property for the permitted purposes 23 within that time. 24 MEMBER IBE: I will second
1 that. 2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any 3 further discussion by the board? 4 Ms. Martin, can you please call the 5 roll. 6 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi? 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 8 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 9 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 10 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 11 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 12 MS. MARTIN: Chairman 13 Ghannam? 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes. 15 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 16 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 17 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 18 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 19 MS. MARTIN: Motion to deny 20 passes, six to zero. 21 MR. QUINN: Thank you very 22 much. Have a good evening. 23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Next on 24 the agenda is Case No. 10-069, for
1 27754 Novi Road, Suithouse. The 2 petitioner has requested in writing to 3 withdraw this case, is that right? 4 MS. MARTIN: Yes. 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: So we 6 don't need a motion to eliminate that 7 from the agenda? 8 MR. SCHULTZ: No. 9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Next is 10 Case No. 10-071, 42355 and 42235 Grand 11 River, for KIA. The petitioner is 12 requesting variances at 42355 Grand 13 River-KIA, to change out the faces of 14 two ground signs approved under 15 previous variances with specified text, 16 install an oversize wall sign with an 17 area increase over that approved in 18 previous variances, install two 19 additional wall signs, an additional 20 non-allowed ground sign of greater than 21 the allowed area and height, and three 22 oversize directional signs. The 23 property is zoned B-3 and P-1 and is 24 located on the east side of Novi Road
1 and south side of Grand River. 2 Would you please state your 3 name. 4 MS. HARRELL: Good evening. 5 My name is Michelle Harrell. I'm 6 counsel for the applicant. And with me 7 tonight is Ed Phillips from Phillips 8 Sign and Lighting, who has filed an 9 application for variance on behalf of 10 Feldman Chevrolet-KIA. 11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Will you 12 be making a presentation, sir? 13 MR. PHILLIPS: As well. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I 15 understand, as well as your counsel. 16 Just raise your right hand and be 17 sworn. 18 MEMBER IBE: In Case 10-071, 19 42355 and 42235 Grand River-KIA, do you 20 swear or affirm to tell the truth? 21 MR. PHILLIPS: I do. 22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Would you 23 state your name and address and please 24 proceed.
1 MR. PHILLIPS: My name is Ed 2 Phillips, Phillips Sign and Lighting, 3 40920 Executive Drive, Harrison 4 Township, Michigan. 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Please 6 proceed. 7 MS. HARRELL: Members of the 8 council and the board, we are here 9 asking for a set of variances for 10 signage that are upon our dealership 11 buildings. In fact, we have in our -- 12 in the package that you have are some 13 renderings of those signs. We have 14 actual bigger ones, so you can actually 15 see what they look like, if we could 16 approach and hand them out. 17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Please. 18 MS. HARRELL: Because they 19 are larger, and you will be able to 20 see. They are also coded so that you 21 can see exactly what kind of variance 22 we are requesting for each type of 23 sign. 24 Overall, there are multiple
1 requests made. Although the requests 2 in total are not very significant, 3 although they are multiple and 4 detailed. Mr. Phillips will go through 5 each one so you can understand. He's 6 put together a very organized 7 presentation of the actual variance 8 request. And after he's done giving 9 you the detail about the requests, I 10 will address the request based upon 11 hardship. 12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. 13 MR. PHILLIPS: Our handout is 14 the entire site. Please note items A 15 through L. The very first item, 16 obviously, is A; they are not in order. 17 The order here was per Jeannie Niland's 18 report you have in your package. What 19 we have done is taken and highlighted 20 the items that were approved. 21 And not to be deceiving in 22 any way, items A, D, C, G and B are 23 approved. Items D and C, copied to be 24 reviewed. We have decided to leave C
1 as is with no changes. So the sign 2 that you see C, "Certified used car," 3 that's the existing sign at the site, 4 will be unchanged. So that is because 5 the structure, if you will note on our 6 little guide here, structure is 7 approved, copy change only, would be 8 the variance. That's per a previous 9 zoning board approval. 10 Sign D is the small -- very 11 small sign you see at the entrance. 12 Again, there is a picture in your 13 package; this is a little quicker to 14 look at. That's a very small sign. I 15 believe it's an 18 square foot sign. 16 The copy on that is yet to be 17 determined. GM has not really designed 18 it or determined what it will say. 19 But, again, that is not an increase, 20 and that was an approved sign just with 21 (inaudible). So, again, structural 22 approved, copy change only. 23 The next items to look at, 24 anything -- anything in yellow has some
1 form of approval. The green items 2 are -- they are directional by nature. 3 The ordinance allows two square feet, 4 as you know. And we do need -- these 5 signs are a little larger. Two square 6 feet is not practical in this. We 7 consider the word "Service" on the KIA 8 building, for example, J, to be very 9 directional by nature. As you can see, 10 at 17 square feet, 17.1, so we do 11 require -- we will need a 15.1 square 12 foot variance. 13 Items L and K, same thing 14 applies, two square feet in both cases, 15 17 square feet needed for "Delivery," 16 and 15 needed for "Service." 17 Okay. Items E, F, H, and I 18 are ones that we require a variance 19 for. And the reasons are shown or 20 indicated in each instance. They are 21 existing signs with the exception of I. 22 And I is a new sign, and it is the KIA 23 sign. It is the KIA brand sign that 24 they are using. It's the smallest of
1 their monument. 2 In wrapping, my purpose, both 3 brands, GM and KIA, has a design 4 criteria. The design you see before 5 you is in conformance from a corporate 6 perspective, branding an image 7 consistency is a critical concern. So 8 that's -- hopefully, this helps. I can 9 answer any questions. 10 MS. HARRELL: I'd like to 11 talk about the issue of the standard 12 for a variance for a sign, which is 13 certainly hardship. I'd also like to 14 tell the board that Marla and Jay 15 Feldman are both here, as well, in case 16 the board has any questions of them. 17 As for this particular 18 property, there is simply not enough 19 signage available on the buildings in 20 order to provide sufficient notice to 21 passerby as to which dealership is 22 which dealership, and also as far as 23 directional signage. 24 The unique part of this
1 business, being a car dealership, and 2 why they need additional sized signs 3 and different types of signs is that 4 you have customers and people passing 5 by on the roadways that are moving 6 about the property, and about the 7 property inside, in the business itself 8 in vehicles. So, for purposes of 9 customer safety and convenience, we 10 need them to be able to see very 11 readily that they are going towards the 12 service area, or they are heading 13 toward the KIA dealership versus the 14 Chevrolet dealership, so that they are 15 not confused directionally or have 16 other issues while they are driving 17 around in their vehicles. So, car 18 dealerships have a unique issue as far 19 as signage. 20 The type of business also 21 involved here has dealer and 22 manufacturer requirements as to 23 signage. If you look at the pictures, 24 you can tell that there has been a
1 modernization by brands as to what they 2 want the dealership to look like. And 3 the signage corresponds to what the 4 brands have asked be done at the 5 dealerships. 6 So, for example, the 7 Chevrolet sign is larger and has a lot 8 of the blue coloring to it. The KIA 9 signage, in fact, the KIA monument, is 10 the smallest one that KIA allows. So 11 we have tried to fit as closely as we 12 could within the sign ordinance so we 13 didn't have to ask for much larger 14 variances. 15 And I think that they are 16 very attractive. We don't think that 17 they are going to be very intrusive 18 into the roadway or be distracting. So 19 we have tried to minimize this as much 20 as possible. Certainly, the hardship 21 is that we need to comply with what the 22 brands want. We also need to have 23 signage that promotes safety and public 24 convenience.
1 We can answer any questions 2 if the board has any questions of us. 3 MEMBER GHANNAM: Okay. Thank 4 you. At this time, I will open this 5 particular case to any public remarks 6 regarding this case only. Is there 7 anybody in the audience who would like 8 to make a comment? Seeing none, I will 9 close the public remark section, and I 10 will ask our secretary to read any 11 correspondence we have. 12 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, 44 13 notices were mailed, zero responses, 14 four mail returned. 15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you, 16 Mr. Secretary. Any comments from the 17 city on this matter? 18 MR. BOULARD: No comment. 19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I will 20 then open it up to the board for 21 discussion. Any questions or comments? 22 Member Skelcy. 23 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you, 24 Mr. Chair. I wanted to ask about sign
1 B, which is already approved. It looks 2 to me like the KIA is west of the 3 dealership, right? Of the road. 4 MR. BOULARD: It's east. 5 MEMBER SKELCY: It's east of 6 the dealership. So, for B, which is 7 approved, and you want the face sign 8 changed, I guess you want the content 9 changed, is that correct? 10 MR. PHILLIPS: Just the lens 11 itself. 12 MEMBER SKELCY: What's it 13 going to be changed to? 14 MR. PHILLIPS: Chevy Truck. 15 MEMBER SKELCY: B? 16 MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. 17 MEMBER SKELCY: It's right in 18 front of the KIA place? 19 MR. PHILLIPS: It's over in 20 that direction certainly. It is at the 21 west end of the Chevy store. The copy 22 on that will look like the center 23 picture. 24 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. So, I
1 guess the thing I'm looking at when I 2 look at the KIA dealership, that's kind 3 of what I'm focusing on now. That's 4 why I'm looking at sign B, because it 5 looks like it's right in front of the 6 KIA dealership. 7 Why do you have to have a 8 sign on the building as well as a 9 monument sign? Wouldn't a monument 10 sign be enough? 11 MR. PHILLIPS: I think in 12 some cases it might be. In this 13 particular instance, I probably think 14 not. With the Marty Feldman Chevrolet 15 proximity there, it just needs to be 16 branded KIA. There could be some 17 confusion as to exactly what's going on 18 over here. It would look like Chevy. 19 MEMBER SKELCY: Are two signs 20 for KIA required by the KIA company? 21 MR. PHILLIPS: Very much so. 22 Every KIA dealership you see -- I can't 23 think of an exception offhand. 24 MEMBER SKELCY: They all have
1 one on their building and a monument 2 sign up front? 3 MR. PHILLIPS: And the 4 monument, certainly. 5 MEMBER SKELCY: I don't have 6 any other questions. Thank you. 7 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member 8 Gedeon. 9 MEMBER GEDEON: A lot of this 10 comes down to the fact that you are 11 going to operate basically two 12 different businesses on one parcel. 13 Can you discuss the pros or cons, or if 14 you had any thoughts about whether or 15 not a parcel split would be appropriate 16 here? Or was that even considered? Or 17 is there a reason why it wasn't 18 considered? Or would that not change 19 anything? 20 MR. PHILLIPS: Parcel split 21 is planned, so it is in there. 22 As far as signage is 23 concerned, we have been very careful to 24 try to design these buildings and brand
1 them with their own brand. So, again, 2 going back to Ms. Skelcy's 3 comment, it's been considered right 4 from the very start. 5 MEMBER GEDEON: And I guess a 6 question for the city and the city 7 attorney. If we grant these variances 8 for the parcel as it is now, how does 9 that work if the split is approved? 10 MR. SCHULTZ: If you grant 11 the variance, and the split is 12 approved, the split won't affect what 13 you do tonight. Charles will be 14 able to answer the question whether, if 15 they do the split first, they might get 16 additional signage. 17 MR. BOULARD: If I may, I 18 believe the split is already done. 19 MR. SCHULTZ: Okay. 20 MR. BOULARD: But, because 21 they are separate businesses, there are 22 signs that are allowed by right. For 23 example, sign G on the KIA dealership 24 is allowed by right because there is
1 another business there. So, there are 2 a certain number of signs. What the 3 request is for is additional signs and 4 refacing of those signs that have 5 been -- additional signs that have been 6 approved previously for the Chevrolet 7 dealership that were specific as to 8 their verbiage that was on them. And 9 also the fact that we got some 10 directional signs, which in the 11 ordinance are allowed to be two square 12 feet. Clearly, we got 17, 19 square 13 feet, those kinds of things 14 MEMBER GEDEON: Thank you. 15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other 16 questions or comments by the board? 17 Mr. Sanghvi. 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you, 19 Mr. Chair. I went and tried to drive 20 around and place all the signs you have 21 today provided. If I had this 22 yesterday, I could have better 23 visualized what you are trying to do. 24 What's the name of the
1 business, just KIA or KIA Feldman? 2 MR. PHILLIPS: Feldman KIA. 3 MS. HARRELL: Feldman KIA. 4 MEMBER SANGVHI: Just like 5 the Chevrolet. 6 MS. HARRELL: Right. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: You have 8 already approved signs that are already 9 there, so we don't need to talk about 10 them. All we are to talk about are the 11 (inaudible) variance and size of the 12 wall sign? Sign F, it's been there a 13 long time? Sign F? 14 MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, the KIA 15 sign. I'm sorry, the Feldman sign? 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: It's been 17 around? 18 MR. PHILLIPS: No, that's a 19 new set of letters. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: Those are 21 new? 22 MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. All the 23 letters on the new signs, by the way, I 24 don't know if the board cares either
1 way, but all this new stuff is all LED. 2 So it's all very low in power 3 consumption. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: So this 5 variance is for a new sign, not the 6 size of the sign, is that right, 7 Mr. Boulard? 8 MR. BOULARD: I'm sorry, 9 which sign, F? 10 MEMBER SANGHVI: Talking 11 about sign F. 12 MR. BOULARD: Yes, sign F. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Variance is 14 for a new sign, not the size of the 15 sign? 16 MR. BOULARD: That's correct. 17 Sign E, there was a previous variance 18 to allow that to go up to 52.4 square 19 feet. And the request is to increase 20 the size of sign E to 103.25 square 21 feet with the logo included. 22 One of the difficulties 23 clearly is that they couldn't do 24 mock-up signs because the new front is
1 not on the Chevrolet dealership and the 2 other building is under construction. 3 MEMBER SANGHVI: I didn't see 4 many mock-ups around there. 5 MR. BOULARD: No. 6 MEMBER SANGHVI: Signs L and 7 K, why do you need such a huge sign? 8 MR. PHILLIPS: They are 9 really not that large. Seventeen 10 square feet is kind of small. Given 11 the size of the building, they are not 12 that large. And two square feet is so 13 small, it's, you know, one by two. 14 MS. HARRELL: Directional 15 signs usually are two feet, because 16 they say "Restroom" and they are the 17 size of the door. But these are bay 18 doors, so they need to be bigger. 19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Most of the 20 bays are -- I don't see many bays in 21 dealership with small doors. 22 MS. HARRELL: No, no, you are 23 right. 24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anything
1 else? 2 MEMBER SANGHVI: That's it. 3 Thank you. 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I'm sorry, 5 Member Skelcy. 6 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you, 7 Chairman. I had a question about E. I 8 have a little bit of an issue with E. 9 Because 52 feet is allowed, and you 10 want 103, that's like twice the size. 11 Now, the size of the letters is not 12 dictated by Chevrolet, is it? 13 MR. PHILLIPS: No, they have 14 letter sets, and this particular 15 letter set -- actually, sorry, let me 16 correct that. Given this entrance 17 element, that's always to scale. If 18 you look at any Chevrolet dealership, 19 it will look similar to this. So, 20 given the certain width, that's the 21 sign that's usually suggested of that 22 marquis or that fascia, if you will. 23 MEMBER SKELCY: All right. 24 Thank you.
1 MR. PHILLIPS: Can I go back 2 to this? 3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Sure. 4 MR. PHILLIPS: This 52 square 5 feet is based on the linear footage of 6 our building. If you take into account 7 this whole building, all we do is just 8 this front portion up here. If you 9 take this whole building, including the 10 part that's set back, we would probably 11 exceed the 103. 12 MEMBER SKELCY: Yeah, does 13 the ordinance permit which part of the 14 building we are to take into account? 15 I mean, does it have to be just the 16 front fascia portion, or does it 17 include the entire length of the 18 building? 19 MR. BOULARD: I can check on 20 that. I believe it's the portion of 21 building that the sign is mounted on. 22 I will be happy to look into that. 23 MS. SKELCY: Thank you. 24 MR. PHILLIPS: That is what we
1 view. I think it's a fair argument, not 2 argument, suggestion, to consider the 3 whole building. This is in scale with 4 what your own ordinances are. 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anyone 6 else? 7 MEMBER SKELCY: I'm sorry, 8 no. Sorry. 9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I just 10 have a few comments myself. I agree, 11 this was very, very helpful today, as 12 it was presented and outlined exactly 13 what you have and what you need. 14 Couple things. Number one, I 15 do understand the uniqueness of the 16 entire property and the fact you have a 17 new brand coming, KIA Motors, and the 18 need for signage. I understand that. 19 You have to understand what we do. The 20 majority of our cases are all signs, 21 "We need more signs," so does everybody 22 else. But, you know, we take this as a 23 case-by-case basis. 24 The board can grant or deny
1 sign by sign, or we can do it as a 2 whole. But, in general, given the 3 uniqueness of your scenario, the 4 location on Grand River, it's typically 5 a faster miles-per-hour roadway, and 6 the need for somewhat larger signs, 7 even though these are, as Member 8 Skelcy pointed out, very large signs. 9 I think under the circumstances I would 10 be in favor of it. I think you 11 established what you need for these 12 types of variances. Clearly, a two 13 square foot sign for service or 14 delivery is very small. We have a 15 number of, you know, car dealerships in 16 Novi. They should be properly 17 identified for the proper flow of 18 traffic and so forth. In any event, I 19 would be in favor of those as 20 requested. 21 Anybody else have questions 22 or comments? Member Krieger. 23 MEMBER KRIEGER: Out of 24 curiosity, on the east side of
1 Haggerty, the Feldman KIA, is that the 2 same family? MR. FELDMAN: 3 That's a temporary location until the 4 new building is done in Novi. 5 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay. And 6 then Marty Feldman is on the pylon 7 sign, so you would also like it on the 8 building? 9 MR. PHILLIPS: No. We will 10 leave the word "Feldman," only goes on 11 the building, and "Marty Feldman" will 12 remain on the ground signs. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: Just a 14 question. Do we need to know what kind 15 of verbiage is going to go on this face 16 change? 17 MR. SCHULTZ: I think if you 18 approve the size of the sign, the 19 verbiage is probably going to be as 20 shown, but they would have the ability 21 to change that unless you 22 specifically -- 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Usually 24 we used to ask what they are going to
1 write. 2 MR. SCHULTZ: Unless you 3 specifically condition that, with their 4 approval. 5 MEMBER SANGVHI: Okay. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member 7 Skelcy. 8 MEMBER SKELCY: I kind of 9 agree that we should include the 10 language, because I remember another 11 case we had where we approved the sign 12 with one language, and then they 13 changed it to something else. 14 MR. SCHULTZ: I'd like to get 15 the assent on record, just so we are 16 clear, if that's the motion, that they 17 agree to that. 18 MEMBER SKELCY: Would you be 19 willing to agree to that limitation? 20 MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. 21 MS. HARRELL: Yes. 22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Which sign 23 were you referring to? 24 MEMBER SKELCY: The ones
1 where they want copy change. 2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: That would 3 be D and C, I believe. Are those the 4 only two that are copy changes? 5 MEMBER SKELCY: I think C is 6 not. 7 MR. PHILLIPS: It would be B 8 as well. 9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: B and C. 10 Is that right, B, C and D, am I 11 accurate? 12 MR. PHILLIPS: B, C, D and A. 13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. I'm 14 sorry, Mr. Boulard. 15 MR. BOULARD: If I may, do 16 you know what the copy is going to be 17 for sign D yet? 18 MR. PHILLIPS: Sign D, no, we 19 do not. General Motors, they are going 20 to drop the Goodrich thing. They are 21 doing something, we are not sure, they 22 are not sure. 23 MR. BOULARD: So that would 24 be -- that would be difficult to
1 specify which language is there. 2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: 3 Personally, I mean, with this type of 4 operation, I know there is not going to 5 be obscene language on there. I know 6 it's going to be all, you know, 7 business related and trademark and so 8 forth. So I personally don't want to 9 get involved in even micromanaging the 10 actual language. I'm sure it will be 11 appropriate. As long as the sizes are 12 appropriate to the board. 13 MEMBER SANGHVI: My question 14 is not micromanage, whether it is 15 required by the ordinance or not. 16 MR. SCHULTZ: It's not 17 required. And when you are adamant 18 enough that you want to make it part of 19 the motion, we just usually ask the 20 petitioner to say that's okay with 21 them, but it is up to the board. 22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other 23 questions or comments or discussion by 24 the board? I will look for a motion.
1 Member Skelcy. 2 MEMBER SKELCY: In the case 3 of 10-071, location 42355 Grand River 4 Avenue, the KIA as well as the Feldman 5 Chevrolet business, I move that we 6 grant the requested variances for the 7 signs at Marty Feldman, including with 8 reference to sign C in the proposal 9 presented to the board that's already 10 been approved. And you are not going 11 change the copy on C, are you? 12 MR. PHILLIPS: That will 13 remain as is. 14 MEMBER SKELCY: So, strike 15 that with regard to sign C. Sign D, 16 that is also copy change, which we are 17 not going to have anything to do with, 18 so we will not include that in the 19 motion. 20 Sign E, that the original 21 variance for this oversize wall sign is 22 52.2 square feet, and move that we 23 grant the request to install an 24 enlarged sign of 103.25 square feet.
1 That we grant the request for a 2 variance for a second wall sign of 3 23.16 square feet, and the additional 4 name "Feldman" on the wall sign. 5 With regard to Feldman KIA, 6 sign H, that we permit the additional 7 Feldman wall sign of 18.75 square feet 8 on the new KIA dealership. 9 With regard to sign I, that a 10 44 square foot, 20 foot high ground 11 sign for KIA be approved, as well as 12 the -- be approved. And for signs J, K 13 and L, that the directional signs for 14 service and delivery be granted at 17 15 square foot each. 16 Because the circumstances and 17 features of this particular area are 18 exceptional and unique to the property, 19 such as the fact that the traffic on 20 Grand River drives by the facility very 21 quickly. And also the fact that we 22 want people to be able to pull into the 23 land facility without stopping on Grand 24 River to look for the delivery area or
1 the service area. 2 The failure to grant relief 3 will unreasonably prevent or limit the 4 use of the property and will result in 5 substantially more than mere 6 inconvenience or inability to attain a 7 higher economic or financial return. 8 And the grant of relief will not result 9 in the use of a structure that is 10 incompatible with adjacent or 11 surrounding properties, and will also 12 result in substantial justice being 13 done to both the applicant and adjacent 14 or surrounding properties, and is not 15 inconsistent with the spirit of the 16 ordinances. 17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any 18 second? I'm sorry, Mr. Boulard. 19 MR. BOULARD: Might I ask if 20 you would like to include sign D, in 21 the previous variance was specific as 22 to the copy. So while the size -- 23 there is not a variance required for 24 the size, the variance would be
1 required to make that available for any 2 copy in the future, which was a 3 request. 4 Also, sign L, I believe, is 5 19 square feet as opposed to the 17 6 square feet. 7 MEMBER SKELCY: The sheet 8 shows L at 17 square feet, not 19. 9 MR. BOULARD: I believe that 10 that's the amount the variance 11 required, is that correct? 12 MS. HARRELL: Yes. 13 MR. PHILLIPS: Actually, one 14 is 17 and one is 15. 15 MEMBER SKELCY: So the 16 variance is for 17 square feet; it will 17 be a total of 19 for sign L? 18 MR. PHILLIPS: Sign L 19 requires 17. Sign K requires 15. 20 MEMBER SKELCY: Variance? 21 MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, variance. 22 MEMBER SKELCY: I would like 23 to amend my motion based on what 24 Mr. Boulard said.
1 MEMBER IBE: I will second 2 the motion. 3 MR. BOULARD: I'm sorry, just 4 to confirm, sign C, you do not -- you 5 are not going to change the face of 6 that? 7 MR. PHILLIPS: We are not. 8 MR. BOULARD: That will stay 9 exactly as it is? 10 MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. 11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: We have a 12 second to the motion. Any further 13 discussion by the board? Seeing none, 14 Ms. Martin, can you please call the 15 roll. 16 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi? 17 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 18 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 19 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 20 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 21 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 22 MS. MARTIN: Chairman 23 Ghannam? 24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes.
1 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 2 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 3 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 4 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 5 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes, 6 six to zero. 7 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: 8 Congratulations. 9 MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very 10 much. 11 MEMBER SKELCY: Thanks for 12 the great sign; it was very helpful. 13 MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very 14 much. 15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Next on 16 the agenda is Case number five, 17 Case No. 11-001, 41460 Grand River 18 Avenue, Suites F and G. The petitioner 19 is requesting a variance to install an 20 additional 18 square foot wall sign on 21 Suites F and G of Gateway Village 22 Retail, located at 41460 Grand River 23 Avenue. The property is zoned NCC and 24 is located north of Grand River on the
1 west side. 2 Can you please state your 3 name and address for the record, sir. 4 MR. WARD: Yes, Patrick Ward, 5 41460 Grand River Avenue. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: You are 7 not an attorney? 8 MR. WARD: No. 9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Just raise 10 your right hand and be sworn by our 11 secretary, sir. 12 MEMBER IBE: Sir, in Case No. 13 11-001, 41460 Grand River Avenue, do you 14 swear or affirm to tell the truth? 15 MR. WARD: Yes, I do. 16 MEMBER IBE: Thank you. 17 MR. WARD: First of all, I 18 would like to thank the board for the 19 opportunity this evening. As everybody 20 should have in the packet, we are 21 requesting a sign variance for a 22 business that was opened in June of 23 2010, C & L Ward. 24 Back in 2010, we entered into
1 a lease agreement at the Shops of GV, 2 which is located on the corner of Grand 3 River and Meadowbrook. At that point, 4 we chose the Shops at GV primarily 5 because of the two retail entrances in 6 the facility as well as two areas for 7 signage. Under our retail agreement 8 with Anderson Windows, the design and 9 construction of the showroom was going 10 to be subsidized by them. So, in doing 11 so, they requested that they get 12 exterior building signage as well. And 13 that's part of, I guess, the point for 14 the additional variance. 15 Under the retail agreement, 16 we cannot have our own stand-alone logo 17 and signage -- actually, we have to 18 have a stand-alone logo and signage. 19 In addition, they have to be 20 represented as well. We can't combine 21 the logos nor can they be touching in 22 any manner. 23 At this point, we have 24 invested $125,000 into the showroom, of
1 which, $55,000 of it was subsidized by 2 Anderson, with the agreement they have 3 the exterior signage on the building. 4 At this point, similar to 5 Feldman, I guess we are citing the 6 traffic. We are on Grand River, as 7 well, so traffic does move quickly. 8 Also, since this is being leased for 9 the purpose of the window and door 10 showroom, if you look at the proper 11 signage above with the entrances, since 12 there is two, if you can look at 13 picture -- actually, this is the 14 building here, the brick building. You 15 will notice it had the C & L Ward logo, 16 and then we also have the Anderson 17 signage that has been installed. 18 That being said, there is two 19 retail entrances, and it will eliminate 20 the confusion amongst the center to 21 have signage above each doorway going 22 into the building. 23 It also appears that the 24 building isn't fully occupied. When we
1 signed our lease agreement with the 2 Shops at GV, they have 12 units, of 3 which at that point four of them were 4 unoccupied, making the facility look 5 kind of desolate, to say the least. 6 So, we feel it looks better in the 7 community to have full occupancy in any 8 type of building. 9 As I said, the showroom is 10 financially subsidized by Anderson. 11 And, again, I, at this point, feel it 12 is consistent with the spirit of the 13 ordinance that has been established by 14 the City of Novi. 15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you, 16 sir. I will ask at this time if there 17 is any input from the audience, if 18 anybody would like to make a comment on 19 this specific case? Seeing none, I 20 will close the public remark section 21 and ask the secretary to read any 22 correspondence. 23 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, 26 24 notices were mailed, zero responses,
1 four mail returned. 2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you. 3 Any input or comments from the city? 4 MR. BOULARD: No. 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: We will 6 open it up to the board for discussion. 7 And as I do -- Member Sanghvi, you have 8 a comment? 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: I have no 10 problem with their request, and I am in 11 support of it. 12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I just 13 have a question or comment, sir. I 14 understand you mentioned that you have 15 an arrangement with Anderson, and part 16 of it there was supposed to be outside 17 signage and so forth. And, apparently, 18 you put it up without permission of the 19 city, I presume. 20 MR. WARD: Yes, I did. 21 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: When was 22 that put up? 23 MR. WARD: The sign itself? 24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes.
1 MR. WARD: The original sign 2 for C & L Ward was placed up in August. 3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: And who 4 put that up? 5 MR. WARD: Mark Zurney from 6 Signtech. 7 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: And you 8 represent who? 9 MR. WARD: I represent C & L 10 Ward. 11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: That's the 12 tenant of the entire two spaces, 13 correct? 14 MR. WARD: Yes. 15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: And you 16 got cited, apparently, according to the 17 records, in November of 2010 because no 18 permit was pulled or no approval was 19 granted? 20 MR. WARD: Yes, there was a 21 permit originally pulled. That's where 22 the confusion took place. We were 23 approved by the landlord, because we 24 were occupying two places, to have two
1 different signs. Unfortunately, after 2 the fact, we come to find out that's 3 not indeed the case. 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. I 5 understand. Is it the case where 6 Anderson is occupying the space where 7 the sign will be? 8 MR. WARD: Yes, sir. 9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: There is a 10 shared arrangement, I presume. 11 MR. WARD: Shared 12 arrangement, which 98 percent of the 13 showroom is Anderson products. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. And 15 a question for the city. The sign 16 that's proposed, if they were allowed a 17 sign, it's within the size limit that 18 is authorized by ordinance? 19 MR. BOULARD: The difficulty 20 is this: Previously there was two -- 21 previously there was two separate 22 suites; each had its own sign. It was 23 smaller based on the frontage that was 24 there. When the suites were combined,
1 now you got one entity. The ordinance 2 allows one sign. And the sign that the 3 gentleman put up, C & L Ward sign, 4 originally the permit that he got was 5 for a size of a sign based on the 6 entire frontage. 7 So, I guess, I believe -- I 8 don't know, based on the frontages, 9 which is 50 percent or whatnot, how big 10 the sign -- how big this second sign 11 would be allowed to be if it was a 12 separate suite. 13 MEMBER GHANNAM: But the C & 14 L sign is larger than permitted by 15 city, only because it occupies two 16 suites? If it only occupied one suite, 17 it should have been smaller? Does that 18 make sense? 19 MR. BOULARD: That's correct. 20 The size of the C & L Ward sign was 21 based on the combined frontage. 22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you. 23 I don't have any other questions. 24 Anybody else? Member Skelcy.
1 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you, 2 Mr. Chairman. How long has CL Ward 3 been in business here at this building? 4 MR. WARD: Since June of 5 2010. 6 MEMBER SKELCY: The Anderson 7 sign, that went up second? 8 MR. WARD: Yes, it did. 9 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. 10 MR. WARD: It was a 11 coordinated effort amongst the general 12 contractor and Anderson Windows, and 13 that's where a bit of the confusion 14 took place with the signs and my 15 subsequent conversation with the 16 landlord regarding occupying the two 17 spaces. 18 MEMBER SKELCY: When you 19 opened up C & L Ward, did you intend to 20 at that time have an Anderson sign up? 21 MR. WARD: Yes. 22 MEMBER SKELCY: You intended 23 to have two signs all along? 24 MR. WARD: Absolutely.
1 Again, under our agreement with 2 Anderson, in order for them to 3 subsidize the showroom, we had to have 4 additional signage for them to help 5 fund the whole project. 6 MEMBER SKELCY: If you 7 intended to do that from the get-go, 8 how come you didn't include the 9 Anderson language in the C & L sign? 10 MR. WARD: Again, under the 11 retailer's agreement, they have to be 12 completely separate signs. We can't 13 combine or touch them. Unlike maybe 14 the last example, like the Chevrolet 15 dealership where they allow you to do 16 that. We can't co-brand at all. 17 MEMBER SKELCY: Okay. Thank 18 you. Those are all the questions I 19 have. 20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member 21 Ibe. 22 MEMBER IBE: Sir, you just 23 said that when you -- when you moved in 24 you had Anderson Windows advertised,
1 correct? 2 MR. WARD: We had the C & L 3 Ward sign. 4 MEMBER IBE: The C & L Ward 5 sign. When you signed the contract, 6 was Anderson on board at the time? 7 MR. WARD: Absolutely. 8 MEMBER IBE: When did you 9 request to put up the C & L Ward sign? 10 MR. WARD: That would have 11 been -- it would have been originally 12 in -- 13 MEMBER IBE: In June? 14 MR. WARD: I don't believe I 15 have that here. I believe it was 16 June. 17 MEMBER IBE: So at that time 18 you knew Anderson needed to have a 19 separate sign, is that correct? 20 MR. WARD: Absolutely. 21 MEMBER IBE: Because the sign 22 you got, obviously, this size is based 23 on the fact that you would occupy both 24 suites; were you aware of that?
1 MR. WARD: No, I was not. 2 And, again, this leads to the 3 confusion. And I will own that part of 4 it with myself and the landlord on it 5 occupying two different signage -- two 6 different entrances. 7 MEMBER IBE: I do understand 8 your need for wanting to obviously to 9 separate, but the problem I have is I 10 cannot have a policy that I go by that 11 if parties are aware of something, and 12 obviously aren't presenting the entire 13 truth to the party who makes a 14 decision, then I find it troubling, 15 because, obviously, you knew going in 16 that Anderson had a separate sign. And 17 had you told that to the board or 18 perhaps when this C & L sign was 19 approved, you may not have the same 20 size that you have now. So if I'm 21 going to vote on this at all, I would 22 vote for an amendment as to your sign 23 to conform with what should have been 24 there originally as if you had two
1 signs. 2 MR. WARD: Okay, I 3 understand. 4 MEMBER IBE: That would be 5 my position, because obviously you have 6 to (inaudible), and right now I feel 7 that you knew, but that information was 8 available when the C & L Ward sign was 9 requested. 10 MR. WARD: That we knew we 11 were getting two signs? 12 MEMBER IBE: Absolutely. 13 Because it was part of your contract. 14 MR. WARD: Contract with who? 15 MEMBER IBE: Anderson, right? 16 MR. WARD: Our contract with 17 Anderson is they had to have exterior 18 signage. 19 MEMBER IBE: Right. 20 MR. WARD: Again, the 21 confusion amongst the sizing I was 22 unaware of. 23 MEMBER IBE: My question is, 24 you knew that -- when did you sign the
1 contract with Anderson? 2 MR. WARD: Well before June. 3 MEMBER IBE: So you knew way 4 before you applied for the C & L sign 5 that Anderson needed a separate sign, 6 is that correct? 7 MR. WARD: Correct. 8 MEMBER IBE: I have nothing 9 further, Mr. Chair. 10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other 11 comments? Member Gedeon. 12 MEMBER GEDEON: Well, I don't 13 have a problem with this. I think if 14 you look at the facade of the building, 15 it's clearly designed to have a sign 16 over each entrance way. And the 17 particular facade feature of the end 18 unit with the triangle shape there, the 19 C & L Ward sign fits quite nicely 20 within that space. So, the size, 21 notwithstanding, I mean, it looks -- it 22 looks appropriate to me. So, I mean, 23 yes, it seems as though they may have 24 made a mistake in their application
1 process, but, I mean, the mistake seems 2 pretty harmless to me. So, I've got no 3 problem with this. 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. Any 5 other comments? Member Krieger. 6 MEMBER KRIEGER: Is the C & L 7 Ward sign, they have a grant for a 8 larger sign? 9 MR. BOULARD: There was not a 10 variance issued for the C & L Ward 11 sign. The size of the C & L Ward sign 12 is larger than would be for a single 13 suite, because it took into -- the 14 calculation took into account the 15 combined frontage of the two suites. 16 Does that answer the question? 17 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay. So, 18 now, if they have two signs and we make 19 an amendment, they have to get a new 20 sign and shrink it? 21 MR. BOULARD: The ordinance 22 would allow one sign based on the 23 combined frontage. You know, the 24 choice from there would be up to the
1 board. 2 MEMBER KRIEGER: Okay, thank 3 you. I understand. Thank you. 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other 5 questions or comments? 6 MEMBER SKELCY: I have a 7 question. How much did the C & L sign 8 cost you? 9 MR. WARD: I don't have 10 that. I feel unprepared, but I don't 11 have it. It was in the range of 12 $4,600. 13 MEMBER SKELCY: Thank you. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other 15 questions or comments? If none, I will 16 entertain a motion. Member Gedeon. 17 MEMBER GEDEON: In Case No. 18 11-001, 41460 Grand River Avenue, Suite 19 F and G, I move to approve the variance 20 as requested for a second sign for a 21 single business operating under two 22 suites, for the reasons that the 23 building is clearly designed to have a 24 sign over each door frame, and is not
1 visually unappealing to have a sign 2 above each door frame. And the 3 mistakes made with the size of the sign 4 were not the fault of the petitioner; 5 it was merely a misunderstanding of 6 what was permitted. 7 In addition, the failure to 8 grant relief will unreasonably prevent 9 or limit the use of the property due to 10 the contractual relationship between 11 Anderson and C & L Ward. And the 12 grant of relief will not result in a 13 use of a structure that's incompatible 14 or unreasonably interfere with adjacent 15 and surrounding properties. 16 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: In terms 18 of further discussion, I have one 19 question for the city. We can limit 20 this to this particular tenant, the C & 21 L Ward tenant? 22 MEMBER SANGHVI: This tenant. 23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: In other 24 words, if this tenant terminates for
1 any reason, this variance would 2 terminate, I presume. 3 MR. SCHULTZ: Correct, yes. 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I would 5 offer an amendment that this approval 6 would be limited to this particular 7 tenant. 8 MEMBER GEDEON: I accept that 9 amendment. 10 MEMBER KRIEGER: I second. 11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: We have an 12 approval and a second. Any further 13 discussion? Seeing none, Ms. Martin, 14 can you please call the roll. 15 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi? 16 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 17 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 18 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 19 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 20 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 21 MS. MARTIN: Chairman 22 Ghannam? 23 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes. 24 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy?
1 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 2 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 3 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 4 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes, 5 six to zero. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: 7 Congratulations. 8 Next is item number six, 9 which is Case No. 11-002, 41370 Bridge 10 Street. The petitioner is requesting 11 an extension to install a real estate 12 leasing sign of 48 square feet 13 adjacent to I-96. The property is 14 zoned I-1 and is located east of 15 Meadowbrook and south of I-96. 16 Please state your name and 17 address, sir. 18 MR. GILTNER: David Giltner, 19 Signature Associates, One Town Square, 20 Suite 1200, Southfield, Michigan, 21 48076. 22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Could you 23 please raise your right hand and be 24 sworn.
1 MEMBER IBE: Sir, in Case No. 2 11-002, 41370 Bridge Street, do you 3 swear or affirm to tell the truth? 4 MR. GILTNER: I do. 5 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Please go 6 ahead, sir. 7 MR. GILTNER: The current 8 zoning ordinance allows for a 16 square 9 foot sign. The sign that I'm here to 10 request is for a freeway sign. 11 Customarily, freeway signs are 48 12 square feet. I'm requesting a 48 13 square foot freeway sign. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. At 15 this point I will open this matter up 16 to public comment. Is there anybody in 17 the public audience who would like to 18 make a comment on this particular case? 19 Seeing none, I will close the public 20 remark section and ask the secretary to 21 read any correspondence. 22 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, 11 23 notices were mailed, zero responses, 24 zero mail returned.
1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you. 2 Any comments by the city? 3 MR. BOULARD: No. 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I will 5 open it up to the board for discussion. 6 Member Sanghvi. 7 MEMBER SANGHVI: Mr. Boulard, 8 as I understand, this is a renewal of a 9 current sign, isn't it? 10 MR. BOULARD: Yes. There was 11 a previous variance that was approved 12 for a period of one year, and this is a 13 renewal of that. 14 MR. GILTNER: I'd like to 15 clarify, actually. The variance was 16 granted to a competitor of mine, the 17 predecessor to the marketing of the 18 building, so this is a, you know, this 19 is a new sign. You granted a variance 20 to another real estate company. 21 MR. BOULARD: But it's -- the 22 sign, the previous variance was not 23 specific to the verbiage, so it's a 24 continuation of the sign that was
1 approved under the variance, is that 2 correct? 3 MR. GILTNER: Okay. 4 MR. BOULARD: Same size, you 5 are not going to move it? 6 MR. GILTNER: It's a 7 different sign company that would take 8 the sign out and put another sign in. 9 I didn't request it would be relocated, 10 so I assume it would be in the same 11 place, yeah. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: This is a 13 new sign? 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: It will be 15 a new sign, as he said, but replacing 16 the old sign, is that correct? 17 MR. GILTNER: Correct. 18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: When did 19 your brokerage company take over this 20 particular listing? 21 MR. GILTNER: January was 22 when we started marketing. It's taken 23 us this far to get in front of you. 24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: What is
1 your listing period? 2 MR. GILTNER: I think I have 3 a one-year listing. 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. 5 Under the circumstances -- this is 6 adjacent to the freeway and really is 7 going to be facing the freeway, is my 8 understanding. 9 MR. GILTNER: Correct. 10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I 11 understand freeway signage is a little 12 unique because of the thousands of cars 13 going by daily as opposed to a street 14 like Meadowbrook or something. 15 MR. GILTNER: Right. 16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I don't 17 have a problem for a one-year 18 limitation of your sign request. 19 Any other comments by the 20 board? 21 MEMBER SANGVHI: I agree with 22 you. 23 MEMBER IBE: I will also 24 support it, Mr. Chair.
1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any 2 further questions or comments? If not, 3 I will entertain a motion. 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: In Case No. 5 11-002, 41370 Bridge Street, I move 6 that we approve the variance requested 7 by the applicant. Request is based 8 upon circumstances or features that are 9 exceptional and unique to this 10 property, and do not result from 11 conditions that exist generally in the 12 city and they are not self-created. 13 The grant of relief will not result in 14 a use of structure that is incompatible 15 with and unreasonably interferes with 16 adjacent and surrounding properties, 17 and will result in substantial justice 18 being done to both the applicant and 19 adjacent and surrounding properties, 20 and is not inconsistent with the spirit 21 of the ordinance. 22 MEMBER KRIEGER: For one 23 year. 24 MEMBER SANGHVI: And required
1 for one year. 2 MEMBER IBE: I will second 3 that. 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any 5 further discussion? Seeing none, Ms. 6 Martin, can you please call the roll. 7 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi? 8 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 9 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 10 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 11 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 12 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 13 MS. MARTIN: Chairman 14 Ghannam? 15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes. 16 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 17 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 18 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 19 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 20 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes, 21 six to zero. 22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you, 23 sir. 24 MR. GILTNER: Thank you.
1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Next is 2 item seven, Case No. 11-003, 30995 3 Springlake Boulevard, for Springs 4 Apartments, II. The petitioner is 5 requesting a variance from Section 6 2503.2.A to allow accessory structures 7 in the interior side yard with setbacks 8 approximately 18 feet. 9 Can you please state your 10 name and address. 11 MR. DECORN: My name is David 12 Decorn (ph), 30057 Orchard Lake Road, 13 Farmington Hills, Michigan. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Are you an 15 attorney, sir? 16 MR. DECORN: No, I'm not. 17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Please be 18 sworn by our secretary. 19 MEMBER IBE: Sir, in Case No. 20 11-003, 30995 Springlake Boulevard, do 21 you swear or affirm to tell the truth? 22 MR. DECORN: Yes. 23 MEMBER IBE: Thank you. 24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Please
1 proceed. 2 MR. DECORN: Basically, we 3 are just asking to build some carports 4 in the existing parking lots that are 5 already there, so it kind of determines 6 where we can put them. I mean, there 7 is really not much to it. Like I said, 8 we have to put them in the parking lots 9 that are existing, so -- and we need a 10 variance on the side to put them in 11 there. 12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anything 13 else? 14 MR. DECORN: No, not really. 15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I will 16 open this to public remarks. If there 17 is anybody in the audience who would 18 like to make a remark in this 19 particular case, please raise your hand 20 and be recognized. Seeing none, I will 21 close the public remarks section and 22 ask our secretary to read any 23 correspondence. 24 MEMBER IBE: Thank you,
1 Mr. Chair. Nineteen notices were 2 mailed, zero responses, zero mail 3 returned. 4 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any 5 comments by the city? 6 MR. BOULARD: Just a quick 7 question. In the application, the 8 request was for seven car ports of six 9 units apiece and two of four units 10 apiece. 11 MR. DECORN: Correct. 12 MR. BOULARD: Is that 13 correct? 14 MR. DECORN: Yes. 15 MR. BOULARD: When I went 16 through the plan, I was having 17 difficulty finding seven of the 18 six-unit ones. Is it possible there is 19 only six? I mentioned it to the 20 planning staff, and they thought there 21 may have been one that was left out 22 because of utility conflicts. I just 23 want to make sure. 24 MR. DECORN: No, there is
1 seven. Do you mind if I come up? 2 MR. BOULARD: We can use the 3 overhead. This one shows up on both 4 sheets. 5 MR. DECORN: Yeah, five, six. 6 MR. BOULARD: This one shows 7 up. 8 MR. DECORN: Correct. I see 9 what you are saying. 10 MR. BOULARD: There is 11 Pontiac Trail here. 12 MR. DECORN: Right here. 13 MR. BOULARD: Okay. So there 14 is seven. Wonderful. I stand 15 corrected. 16 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. Any 17 other comments by the city? I will 18 open it up to the board, and as I do, I 19 will make a couple comments. 20 What is the purpose of the 21 carports? Is it requested by the 22 tenants? 23 MR. DECORN: Yes, basically 24 to give them the opportunity to get
1 their vehicles out of the weather 2 and -- 3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: If you add 4 the total number of carports you are 5 offering, is it basically one per unit, 6 is that how you are counting? 7 MR. DECORN: No, it's 25 8 percent, between 20 and 25 percent. 9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: So do 10 tenants pay extra for that? 11 MR. DECORN: Yeah, they would 12 actually lease them, so first come, 13 first serve. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I presume, 15 if I'm not -- I'm not correct, that 16 they would have to submit plans to the 17 city to approve for proper structural 18 and other issues? 19 MR. BOULARD: Yes. They 20 already submitted for the approval of 21 the site plan. A condition of that 22 approval -- because these end up for 23 this complex in the side setback, and I 24 believe the other complex in the side
1 and front setbacks. 2 MR. DECORN: Correct. 3 MR. BOULARD: Is that the 4 approval is conditioned upon the 5 approval of this body. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. Was 7 there any input from the fire marshal 8 as to any egress or ingress issues? 9 MR. BOULARD: The fire 10 marshal had a chance to comment when 11 this went before planning staff, and it 12 was approved. 13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. I 14 have no problems with your request, 15 sir, as you requested. 16 Any other comments by the 17 board? 18 MEMBER SANGHVI: No, I agree 19 with you. 20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I will -- 21 if there is no other comments, I will 22 entertain a motion. 23 MEMBER IBE: I will take 24 it.
1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Member 2 Ibe. 3 MEMBER IBE: In Case No. 4 11-003, 30995 Springlake Boulevard, I 5 move that we grant the variance 6 requested by the applicant for the fact 7 that there are unique circumstances of 8 the property makes it such it becomes 9 necessary to have the carports. At 10 least in Michigan, a place where you do 11 have snow. And talking about snow, 12 there may be some snow tomorrow. And, 13 obviously, the residents of this 14 particular place have requested these 15 particular carports, in which the 16 applicants (inaudible). Although not 17 everyone gets the carport, but it does 18 serve the purpose for which it is 19 intended. So that uniqueness I think 20 is sufficient to grant the request. 21 Secondly, the need is not 22 self-created. Obviously, we do 23 understand based on weather conditions 24 that makes it necessary to have a
1 carport living in Michigan. 2 Strict compliance with 3 regulations governing the area, 4 setbacks, frontage, height, bulk, 5 density will render conformity with 6 those regulations unnecessarily 7 burdensome for the applicant. The 8 requested variance is the minimum 9 necessary to do substantial justice to 10 the applicant as well as other property 11 owners in the district. And the 12 requested variance will not cause 13 adverse impact on surrounding property. 14 And this is also consistent with the 15 zoning ordinance. 16 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: It's been 18 moved and seconded. Any further 19 discussion by the board? Seeing none, 20 Ms. Martin, can you please call the 21 roll. 22 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi? 23 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 24 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger?
1 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 2 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 3 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 4 MS. MARTIN: Chairman 5 Ghannam? 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes. 7 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 8 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 9 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 10 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 11 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes, 12 six to zero. 13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: 14 Congratulations, sir, on that. You are 15 here on the next item? 16 MR. DECORN: Yes. 17 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Next item 18 is item number eight, Case No. 11-004, 19 31170 Wellington Drive - Portsmouth 20 Apartments. The petitioner is 21 requesting a variance from Section 22 2503.2.A allowing accessory structures 23 in the front and interior side yard. 24 Could you please state your
1 name again for the record. 2 MR. DECORN: David Decorn. 3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: You have 4 already been sworn, sir, previously, so 5 we won't swear you in again, so please 6 state your case. 7 MR. DECORN: Basically, this 8 is the same situation. We are looking 9 to build some carports, and we need a 10 variance on the front and side 11 setbacks. 12 This one there is one 13 building that was eliminated, so the 14 application I believe says 19, but I 15 think we made it 18, because there was 16 an easement for a gas line in building 17 six. But other than that, everything 18 is -- we are just eliminating one of 19 those. 20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: So your 21 request is for 18 carports, is 22 that it? 23 MR. DECORN: I don't have the 24 application in front of me.
1 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I'm sorry. 2 MR. BOULARD: I believe there 3 is 28. 4 MR. DECORN: I'm sorry, yeah, 5 28. I'm sorry, yeah. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anything 7 else, sir? 8 MR. DECORN: No. 9 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I will 10 open it up to public remarks. If there 11 is anybody in the audience that would 12 like to make a comment, please raise 13 your hand. Seeing none, I will close 14 the public remark section and ask the 15 secretary to read any correspondence. 16 MEMBER IBE: Mr. Chair, 66 17 notices were mailed, zero responses, 18 zero mail returned. 19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. Any 20 comments from the city? 21 MR. BOULARD: No. 22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any 23 comments or questions by the board? 24 MEMBER SANGVHI: I think it's
1 a good idea to have carports; I have no 2 problem. 3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I have no 4 problem with it either, sir, for the 5 previous reasons we stated. Would 6 anybody like to make a motion? 7 MEMBER IBE: I can certainly 8 take it, but just real quick, is it 27 9 or going to be 28? 10 MR. BOULARD: Twenty-eight. 11 MEMBER IBE: Still 28? 12 MR. BOULARD: I found 28. 13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. 14 MEMBER IBE: In Case No. 15 11-004, 31170 Wellington Drive, 16 Portsmouth Apartments, I move that we 17 grant the applicant's request for the 18 variances as requested for 28 unit 19 carports in the existing apartment 20 complex for the following reasons: And 21 the fact that there are unique 22 circumstances or physical conditions of 23 the property which necessitate to have 24 the carport. And just as was
1 previously stated, Michigan is a cold 2 state and we do have snow, and the need 3 for carports is definitely a necessity 4 these days. And since the applicant 5 has elected to put up carports, that by 6 itself is unique. 7 This request or need for 8 carports is not self-created because of 9 the weather conditions in Michigan. 10 And strict compliance of the 11 regulations governing the area, 12 setback, frontage, height or bulk will 13 unreasonably prevent the property owner 14 from using the property for the 15 purposes that is intended. The 16 requested variance is the minimum 17 variance necessary to do substantial 18 justice to the applicant. And the 19 requested variances will not cause any 20 adverse impact on the surrounding 21 property owners, and is consistent with 22 the zoning board. 23 MEMBER KRIEGER: Second. 24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any
1 further discussion by the board? 2 Seeing none, Ms. Martin, can you call 3 the roll. 4 MS. MARTIN: Member Sanghvi? 5 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. 6 MS. MARTIN: Member Krieger? 7 MEMBER KRIEGER: Yes. 8 MS. MARTIN: Member Ibe? 9 MEMBER IBE: Yes. 10 MS. MARTIN: Chairman 11 Ghannam? 12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Yes. 13 MS. MARTIN: Member Skelcy? 14 MEMBER SKELCY: Yes. 15 MS. MARTIN: Member Gedeon? 16 MEMBER GEDEON: Yes. 17 MS. MARTIN: Motion passes, 18 six to zero. 19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: 20 Congratulations, sir. 21 MR. DECORN: Thank you. 22 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Moving on, 23 we have other matters, the election 24 of officers. I know we were supposed
1 to have that last month, and because of 2 absences of members, we adjourned it to 3 this month. How do we do the order? 4 Should it be chairman first? 5 MR. SCHULTZ: Chairman first. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Anybody 7 like to make any nomination for 8 chairman? 9 MEMBER SANGHVI: May I 10 propose the name of Mr. Ghannam as 11 Chairman. 12 MEMBER IBE: I second that. 13 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Thank you, 14 Member Sanghvi and Member Ibe, and I 15 accept the nomination. 16 Any other nominations for 17 Chairman for this coming-up year? 18 MEMBER SANGVHI: I suggest we 19 close the nomination. 20 MEMBER IBE: I second that as 21 well. 22 MEMBER KRIEGER: I third 23 it. 24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: We take a
1 vote on the record, I presume? 2 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, correct. 3 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. 4 Ms. Martin, I believe she can call the 5 roll? 6 MR. SCHULTZ: She can do a 7 voice vote. 8 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: A voice 9 vote? 10 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes. 11 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Then all 12 in favor, say aye. 13 THE BOARD: Aye. 14 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: All 15 opposed? Seeing none, I have been 16 elected chairman. 17 MEMBER IBE: Congratulations. 18 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Go ahead, 19 Member Sanghvi. 20 MEMBER SANGHVI: May I 21 nominate Mr. Ibe as vice chairperson 22 for the next session. 23 MEMBER SKELCY: Second. 24 MEMBER IBE: Thank you, I
1 will accept. 2 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Any other 3 nominations for vice chair? 4 MEMBER SANGHVI: I suggest we 5 close the nomination, sir. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Seeing 7 none, I will close the nominations for 8 vice chair. So all in favor of Member 9 Ibe being vice chair for this next 10 session, say aye. 11 THE BOARD: Aye. 12 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: All 13 opposed? Seeing none, congratulations, 14 Member Ibe, for vice chair. Next? 15 MEMBER SANGHVI: I'd like to 16 nominate Ms. Skelcy as secretary for 17 the coming session. 18 MEMBER IBE: I will second 19 that. 20 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Okay. Any 21 other nominations for secretary? 22 MEMBER SKELCY: Oh, I will 23 accept. 24 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: I didn't
1 even ask you. Seeing no other 2 nominations for secretary, all in favor 3 of Member Skelcy being secretary, say 4 aye. 5 THE BOARD: Aye. 6 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: All 7 opposed? Seeing none, congratulations. 8 We have no others, right? 9 MR. SCHULTZ: No others. 10 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: Those are 11 the three. 12 MEMBER SANGHVI: May I make a 13 motion to adjourn? 14 MEMBER IBE: Second. 15 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: All in 16 favor of adjourning at this point, say 17 aye. 18 THE BOARD: Aye. 19 CHAIRMAN GHANNAM: All 20 opposed? Seeing none, we are 21 adjourned. 22 (The Meeting was adjourned at 23 9:08 p.m.) 24 - - -
|